Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Need assessement study.lpb.oct.2009

806

Published on

Socialization and legalization of ethnic belief and knowledge with its role in improving behavior towards forest, land, water in protected watershed forest has recently become an important and …

Socialization and legalization of ethnic belief and knowledge with its role in improving behavior towards forest, land, water in protected watershed forest has recently become an important and urgently needed strategy in Mekong countries.

CHESH Lao, with consistent cooperation with Mong, Kho Mu, Lao Lum ethnic groups, co-implementation of PAFO and financial support from ICCO ; has been practicing the strategy of “customary laws based community development” in the three villages of Long Lan, Xiang Da and Nam Kha in the two districts of Nam Bac and Luang Prabang of Luang Prabang province from 1999 - 2009. This work has created valuable practical lessons-learnt and has been recognized by officials and the populous as an effective strategy for community development .

CHESH has been practicing an ethnic psychological approach to maximize local knowledge, belief and practice in harmonious behavior towards nature and the flexible application of community customary laws for resolutions of land, forest conflicts and forest management in the three villages of Long Lan, Xiang Da and Nam Kha. The practical outcomes and indicators from these three villages have attracted interest from universities , researchers, media , local and central officials, ethnic groups in Laos, Vietnam and Thailand and several other social actors. There has been keen interest from these parties in learning about this approach and its application.

Results and recommendations from the workshop of CHESH- PAFO – PEOPLE in Lao are credible indicators of the importance of expanding pilots and to continue with the socialization strategy as demonstrated by ten-years (1999 – 2009) of CHESH development activities in Luang Prabang. Target groups are ethnic minority people living in the Mekong watershed who are particularly vulnerable. This is especially relevant in the context of major global environmental challenges such as climate change.

The positive outcomes of CHESH – PAFO – PEOPLE have influenced the Luang Prabang provincial authority to suggest that CHESH Lao help support and advise them in expanding pilot models of watershed forest management based on ethnic belief and customary law in other areas in the province; Long Lan is a model of living curriculum, successful indicators, positive aspiration and human behavior that we can look to for examples of real solutions in the current context of global environmental challenges.

Globalization has deeply affected most families and communities in the region during recent years. Modernization programs, hydropower plants and cash crop plantations for example take away large areas of fertile agricultural land and forest from local communities. Traditional community social institutions and cultural values are being damaged and eroded at the same time. Villagers lose the spaces that are important to nurture their beliefs, spiritual values, customary laws and practice of moral behavioral norms.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
806
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Social Policy Ecology Research Institute Centre for Human Ecology Studies (SPERI) in Highlands (CHESH) CHESH Lao Programme REPORT ON NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY (NAS) Training Workshop Approach & Practice in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat villages Luang Prabang district, Luang Prabang province, Lao PDR (October 10th to November 2 nd 2009) Luang Prabang, November 2009 Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 1 2nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW funding contribution
  • 2. TABLE OF CONTENTSI. Background .................................................................................................................................... 3II. Objectives of socialization and legalization of ethnic beliefs and knowledge in forestmanagement and sound land use; ........................................................................................................... 4III. Methodology of socialization and legalization of ethnic beliefs and knowledge in forestmanagement and sound land use ............................................................................................................. 4IV. Context ....................................................................................................................................... 5 IV.1. Descriptions of Phon Xa Vat and Den Xa Vang village............................................................. 5 IV.2. Legal framework review .......................................................................................................... 9 IV.3. Problem analysis in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat:.............................................................. 10 1. Overlapping on land and forest use and managment..................................................................... 10 2. Shortage of cultivating land ........................................................................................................ 12 3. Shortage of drinking water and polluted water ............................................................................. 13 4. Free animal raising ..................................................................................................................... 15 5. Cross-cutting issue ...................................................................................................................... 16V. Outcomes from NAS from October 10th – November 2nd, 2009 ................................................... 16 V.1. Identified Objectives .............................................................................................................. 16 The Overall Objective ..................................................................................................................... 16 Mid-term Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 16 Short-term objectives ...................................................................................................................... 17 V.2. Solutions for problems in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat villages .......................................... 17 1. Overlapping on land and forest use and managment..................................................................... 17 2. Shortage of cultivating land ........................................................................................................ 18 3. Shortage of drinking water and polluted water ............................................................................. 18 4. Free animal raising ..................................................................................................................... 19 5. Cross-cutting issue ...................................................................................................................... 19 V.3. Lessons learned from NAS ..................................................................................................... 20 V.4. Strategic planning 2009 - 2019 .............................................................................................. 28 Annexes .............................................................................................................................................. 30 Annex 1: Policy Review ................................................................................................................. 30 Annex 2: Visionary Analysis and Inter-Cultural Community Development Approach ...................... 33 Annex 3: Diagrams to describe steps of level A to D ....................................................................... 34 Annex 4: Conclusion by Facilitator for Level A .............................................................................. 38 Annex 5: MoU between RCSD/CEDS, PAFO’S CHESH-LAO & SPERI ........................................ 40 Annex 6: Network Action ............................................................................................................... 46 Annex 7: Questions of justice for the poor and Kho Mu’s challenges ............................................... 50 Annex 8: Detailed reports on culture, social and economics in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat ........ 56Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 22nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 3. I. BackgroundSocialization and legalization of ethnic belief and knowledge with its role in improvingbehavior towards forest, land, water in protected watershed forest has recently become animportant and urgently needed strategy in Mekong countries.CHESH1 Lao, with consistent cooperation with Mong, Kho Mu, Lao Lum ethnic groups,co-implementation of PAFO2 and financial support from ICCO3; has been practicing thestrategy of “customary laws based community development” in the three villages ofLong Lan, Xiang Da and Nam Kha in the two districts of Nam Bac and Luang Prabang ofLuang Prabang province from 1999 - 2009. This work has created valuable practicallessons-learnt and has been recognized by officials and the populous as an effectivestrategy for community development4.CHESH has been practicing an ethnic psychological approach to maximize localknowledge, belief and practice in harmonious behavior towards nature and the flexibleapplication of community customary laws for resolutions of land, forest conflicts andforest management in the three villages of Long Lan, Xiang Da and Nam Kha. Thepractical outcomes and indicators from these three villages have attracted interest fromuniversities5, researchers, media6, local and central officials, ethnic groups in Laos,Vietnam and Thailand and several other social actors. There has been keen interest fromthese parties in learning about this approach and its application.Results and recommendations from the workshop7 of CHESH- PAFO – PEOPLE in Laoare credible indicators of the importance of expanding pilots and to continue with thesocialization strategy as demonstrated by ten-years (1999 – 2009) of CHESHdevelopment activities in Luang Prabang. Target groups are ethnic minority people livingin the Mekong watershed who are particularly vulnerable. This is especially relevant inthe context of major global environmental challenges such as climate change.The positive outcomes of CHESH – PAFO – PEOPLE have influenced the LuangPrabang provincial authority to suggest that CHESH Lao help support and advise them inexpanding pilot models of watershed forest management based on ethnic belief andcustomary law in other areas in the province; Long Lan is a model of living curriculum,successful indicators, positive aspiration and human behavior that we can look to forexamples of real solutions in the current context of global environmental challenges.Globalization has deeply affected most families and communities in the region duringrecent years. Modernization programs, hydropower plants and cash crop plantations forexample take away large areas of fertile agricultural land and forest from localcommunities. Traditional community social institutions and cultural values are being1 CHESH = Center for Human Ecology Study of Highlands2 PAFO = Luang Prabang Provincial Agro-Forestry Office3 ICCO = Interchurch for Cooperation and Development, the Netherlands4 Please refer to CHESH Lao library for each phase of the project during 1999 - 20095 Suphanuvong University - Lao PDR, RCSD – Chiang Mai University – Thailand.6 VTC – Vietnam Digital Television.7 Workshop in Luang Prabang, April 2-3, 2009Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 32nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 4. damaged and eroded at the same time. Villagers lose the spaces that are important tonurture their beliefs, spiritual values, customary laws and practice of moral behavioralnorms. These are some of the tremendous challenges that are occurring now and willcontinue to face these communities in the future.CHESH – PAFO - PEOPLE set objectives and foster actions towards sustainablelivelihoods, respect and a nurturing attitude towards nature and make an effort to establishor maintain the bio-diversity in the Mekong watershed communities where they work. It isan integrated process as maintenance of bio-diversity also promotes a suitableenvironment that nurtures traditional cultural values and vice versa. CHESH – PAFO –PEOPLE approach, ethnic communities in Laos are in line with its priority. MentionedpreviouslyII. Objectives of socialization and legalization of ethnic beliefs and knowledge in forest management and sound land use;1. To establish models in the Mekong watershed, which become practical grassrootstraining sites and living curriculum of forest management and sound land use based onethnic community beliefs and customary laws;2. To have a network of reputable village elders and community entrepreneurs, whomaintain traditional knowledge and customary laws in land and forest management andcontribute to Farmer Field Schools - FFSs, in training future professional ecologicalfarmers;3. To gather the evidence, data and theory to lobby the case for policy on forest andland management based on community value systems in the Mekong watershed;4. To create a network action and exchange network based on this approach as afoundation to fight against climate change in the Mekong region.III. Methodology of socialization and legalization of ethnic beliefs and knowledge in forest management and sound land useIII.1. Enrich Customary Laws in Forest and Land Use Management 2009 – 2010 (seeproject proposal written by CHESH/SPERI in cooperation with BfDW) ( in twovillages of Phon Xa Vat and Den Xa Vang – expanding application based on the LongLan model)III.2. Needs Assessment Study of two adjacent villages with multiple ethnicity (seeproposal of Need Assessment Study and LOU between CHESH – PAFO - PEOPLEand BfDW be signed) ( two villages of Phon Xa Vat and Den Xa Vang – expandingapplication based on the Long Lan model)Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 42nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 5. III.2. 1. Objectives of Needs Assessment Study at Phon Xa Vat and Den Xa Vang.1. To get an understanding of the psychology, aspiration and needs of people inrelationship to land and forest management in the two villages;2. To research lessons-learned based on ethnic beliefs and knowledge in relationshipsto land and forest management;3. To understand difficulties, challenges, advantages and potentials in land and forestmanagement at the two villages;4. To gain insight into livelihood and inter-generational security at the two villages;5. To have a common understanding among all stakeholders and participants aboutcustomary law in watershed forest and Land management.6. To improve the capacity of those participating including; provincial and districtofficials, CHESH Lao staff – PAFO - PEOPLE, key-elders and farmers of the twovillages in the approach to study, analyze, assess community challenges, potentials,problems and needs.III.2.2. Strategy of Needs Assessment StudyTo update concrete practical data as a basis for a detailed activity plan and prioritizedapproach in the cooperation program of CHESH/SPERI Lao and BfdW - Bread for theworld, for the one year period from 2009 – 2010 according to Section III.1. “Enrichingcustomary law in Forest and Land Use Management” in the two villages of Phon Xa Vatand Den Xa Vang.IV. ContextIV.1. Descriptions of Phon Xa Vat and Den Xa Vang villageDen Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat locate inthe South-East of the Phu Sung topMountain, 30 km away from the northof Luang Prabang City. These villageshares with other 12 villages of Mong,Kho Mu and Lao Lum in Phu Sungwatershed area.Den Xa Vang is home to 92 householdsof Mong (25 households), Kho Mu (64households), Lao Lum (2 households)and one Dzao (1 household) in whichtotal is 549 villagers, 248 labor, 144 women labor. Total pupilsenrolment for the primary and secondary schools are 144 ofwhich 69 female pupils, 7 teachers, including 4 femaleteachers, 32 kindergarten pupils, including 11 female pupils.100% women and children are vaccinated yearly from theGovernment program. The total land area of Den Xa Vang is975 ha in which 1) protection forest is 115 ha; 2) restoredforest is 165 ha; 3) Reserved land is 11 ha; 4) other forest is40.65 ha; 5) productive forest is 130 ha; 6) productiveCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 52nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 6. cultivating land is 155 ha; 7) rice-field is 20 ha; 8) industrial crop (sesame, millet, corn) is65.13 ha; 9) teak: 49.2 ha; and 10) construction, residential land is 3 ha. Livelihoods ofthe villagers heavily depend on natural resources e.g. collection of NTFPs, free animalsraising. 7% of households in the village currently lack of food from 3-5 months per year.Phon Xa Vat is home to 84 households of Mong and Kho Mu people with 504populations of which 240 are female. 21/84 households are Mong and 63 are Kho Mu.There are 8 households mainly working on rice field; 43 households mainly working onslope rotation field; 13 households mainly raising husbandry; 2 households mainly tradingand other jobs including workers for rock exploitation, and temporary constructionworkers. Total pupils enrolment for the primary and secondary schools are 59. The totalland area of Phon Xa Vat is 830 ha 1) protected forest is 1 ha; 2) Reserved forest is 530ha; 3) other forest is 46.8 ha; 4) productive forest is 40 ha; 5) productive cultivating landis 198.24 ha; 6) rice-field is 6.33 ha8. On average, wet rice production is 2.5 tons per ha;dry rice is 2 tons per ha. 22% of households in the village currently lack of food from 3-5months per year.StrengthsDespite facing a lot of challenges, Kho Mu and Mong in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vatvillages maintain their specific belief in the nature, forest, land and water. Kho Mu peoplebelieve in Phu Pha No (Heaven Bamboo Shoot Hills) natural spirits and Pha Lieng Phi Ho(Forest for Caring for Village Spirits). Mong people worship Thu Ti, Tong Xenh,maintain and practice their customary laws.Community structure: While Nai Baan9 (village head) is important person for state,administrative affair, Con Cham and Croimon are key spiritual leaders of Kho Mu people.They are spiritual foundation for villagers, represent villagers to worship spirits forgoodness and chasing away bad things (See details: annex 7).Clans: Main clans in the two villages compose of Tamong, Simom (a kind of bird),T’ravai (tiger), Ta-va, Sloc (A kind of bird named Tanglo), Chan-t’re, Ta Hap (Fish trapmade of bamboo). Tamong clan is the largest in Phon Xa Vat village (33 households).There is a clan council of 10 reputable members, who discuss and decide on essentialaffair of the clan. Each clan has their own legend to interpret their totem. For instance,T’ra-vai clan keeps taboo of touching, hunting or eating tigers. They believe that, if theyate tiger meat, their teeth would drop out. If they touched tiger, their skin would getdisease. Ta Hap clan does not eat meat of the pig that is kept in hap (a bamboo box similarto fish trap). Tava clan does not touch or cut Tava trees. That belief does not only makegood sense for Kho Mu belief, but is also useful for environment protection, whichnurtures Kho Mu belief.Villagers set up Kho Mu and Mong cooperation of cow raising at a common area in DenXa Vang. 21 Mong and 12 Kho Mu households share that common area for raising cows.Villagers, including Mong and Kho Mu got agreement on cattle raising practice. Newhouseholds, who want to join that common area, should contribute labour for repairingfence. They created different signs on the cows’ ears, so that the owner can recognize8 These data remain from land allocation program in 1999 which is not accurate to current situationanymore. For instance, according to village report, residential and construction land area is 0.4 ha, butpractically it should be around 4 ha?9 Nai Baan: village head, the manager of the lowest administrative level.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 62nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 7. exactly. This is one of the beginning cooperation between Kho Mu and Mong fororganization of production in particular and community organization as well. The villagekeep two areas of animal raising, one locates at Long Lan village, serve the village’smostly Mong and some Kho Mu households. The other locates at Den Xa Vang area,prominently serve Kho Mu households.Various exchanging labour groups were set up within Mong or Kho Mu group forseedling, harvesting rice, maize. This is traditional popular practice of the villagers. Thishelps villagers dealing actively with seedling, harvesting, and also promote communitysolidarity. Besides exchanging labour, some households with shortage of labour or beingunable to join exchanging labour tend to hire labour for their timely plough or harvest.According to the receivers’ needs, they pay 20,000 kips or 4 to 5kg of rice per day. Thehired labourers take rice, and the host prepare foodstuff for lunch.Community labour group was set up to repair such community infrastructure as pipeline,sewerage, and to clean the village. This group is voluntarily set up and contributed byvillagers according to village needs and plan.Pig raising areas have initially been set up in Den Xa Vang for 6 months. Villagers aretrying to transfer from free animal raising to keeping and feeding them. This requires thewhole community, especially key reputable persons, village leaders to implement,supervise strictly, so that to change old practices successfully.Villagers maintain rotational cultivation: cultivate rice, maize or millet for one year (ortwo years on good soil), then plant teaks or let fallow for 2 years (as the saying: Xoong Piham, Sam Pi Khop). Villagers still maintain local seeds as well as relevant localknowledge and skills. Each household have 3 plots of field and practice rotationalcultivation of different crops on those fields. They prefer to cultivate rice first, and thenplant teak at the end of the process.WeaknessesAlmost villagers do not have favourable conditions to access and understand governmentland policy and laws. Most of them base on traditional perception and practices, and therecognition of community members. This is also strength, because community can solveoverlapping things by themselves. However, villagers will face difficulties whileGovernment applies land law for their management, using land and solving landproblems.Regulations which were introduced by district authorities are not well implemented byPhon Xa Vat and Den Xa Vang villagers. This resulted from shortage of villagers’participation in discussion, setting up and getting agreement, commitment ofimplementation. Besides, different ethnic groups have not attain strong linkage, especiallyin regulations of management, maintenance, reparation of water resources, cattle raisingand prevention of animal’s diseases.Free cattle raising and increasing habit of using plastic bags negatively affect to villagersand their surrounding environment. Most of raised livestock involve in makingenvironmental pollution, contaminated water resources of the villagers’ daily life. Plasticbags are increasingly spread out villages.Ineffective application of family planning methods causes unexpected pregnancy andgiving birth. Several short-term successive children push more pressure to eachhousehold, especially women. They want to stop giving birth for better conditions toensure children’s life and education, however they do not know how to start with?Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 72nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 8. EU project had helped to set up savings and credit fund in the two villages. This fundstopped operation in Phon Xa Vat after one year because borrowers did not pay backfund, so others would not want to keep membership. After on year of operation in Den XaVang, (2001-2002), members appreciated activities of the group. However since secondyear (2002-2003), because of not good transparent management by only one person whodealing with accounting and treasure, so members did not want to join. The bookkeepingof the approximately one million kip fund was transferred to village head.OpportunitiesDistrict authorities allocated land with temporary land use certificates in 1999 andpermanent land use certificates (yellow certificates) in 2006 to households, includingresidential, wet rice, garden, rotational field. Forest and cattle raising area were allocatedto villages.Teak and oil tree species which are native species are available in local area. Suitableplantation of those trees will make land use effective, that is also good for reforestation.Villagers are ready for these plantations in terms of seeds and techniques. At the sametime, Luang Prabang province promotes reforestation programe which aims to cover over65% of forests of the total land area.Many villagers (especially elders) still maintain their skills of traditional rattan andbamboo handicraft products. Additional, unique nature, culture nearby former capital ofLuang Prabang creates great potential to develop community eco-cultural tourism.The two target villages are adjacent to Long Lan village, where customary laws have beenapplied well for watershed management and protection, planning areas for production,cooperation for production, livestock; good community administration: forbid winedrinking; experiences of conflict resolution. Long Lan village is a good pilot model forthe target villagers to get study tour and exchange experiences.ChallengesAccording to Instruction No. 09, physical plus calculation of small villages peoples toensure criteria of number of villagers and households to set up certain villages. However,this plus calculation is unable to adapt to cultural values, beliefs, customary laws,community linkages. Therefore, bridging between inherent Kho Mu inhabitants and newmerging Mong people could not reach good unique effects (excluding animal raisingcooperation in Den Xa Vang village).Beside the mentioned opportunities (land allocation, local plantation, community eco-cultural tourism), there remains huge challenges. With Yellow Land certificates,transaction of land and changing from production land to teak plantation will be bigchallenge. Practically 70% of 49.2 ha of teak have been transacted in Den Xa Vang, andsimilar situation are happening in Phon Xa Vat. Community food security may becomeproblematic due to changing from grain production to industrial plantation.Villagers are exposed to big threat of selling labour on their own traditional land or intowns due to limited cultivating land. Otherwise they have to use more forest for newgrain cultivation field.Land overlapping between traditional land of former Long Ngau, Nha Kha Luangvillagers, who remove and come back and resettlement and formal land allocationprogramme for Phon Xa Vat, Den Xa Vang villagers. Villagers use increasinglyherbicide, insecticide. That will not only pollute human and animal existing environment,Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 82nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 9. but also negatively damage image of Lao countryside, which have been known astraditional, trusted organic cultivation. This image helped people to behave harmoniouslywith the nature and people of Laos.Many households are very difficulty to deal with supporting children to go to schoolbecause of increasing school fees, so they cannot afford.IV.2. Legal framework reviewAfter American war, affected people resettle and stabilize since 1975. New governmentand its unprofessional management resulted in less effect to settlement and operation ofcommunities. However, that created favorable condition for communities to promote theirinherent strength and wisdoms to stabilize themselves.The Lao Government has started to resettled villages since 1976 until now. Theresettlement programme has promoted faster since 1986. During 1986 to 1995, the LaoGovernment had issued a series of degrees and instructions on forest and agricultural landmanagement which aim: 1) to stop deforestation (deemed to result mainly from swiddenagriculture); 2) to intensify agricultural production and to improve the governmentrevenue base through land taxation. Private ownership of land and increased tenuresecurity are expected to encourage agricultural investment, intensive use of land and therise of a market-oriented agriculture.The State of Laos has passed the Forest Law (No. 96/NA11) in 1996 which defines forestsinto five official classification categories: 1) Production forests; 2) Conservation forests:3) Protection Forests; 4) Regeneration Forests; and 5) Degraded Forests10 and following1997, the State has passed the Land Law (33/PO of May 1997). In accordance with theLand Law, the State issues Temporary Land Use Certificates (villagers’ so-called bluecertificates) to each household. TLUC is considered for three years before allocatedPermanent Land Use Certificates (PLUC) with full ownership titles (so-called YellowCertificates) if they have used TLUC legally, paid tax and no land dispute. A TLUC canbe withdrawn if the beneficiary does not practice on that land regularly and can not betransferred as well. These two major laws have replaced all previous policies regarding toforests and land since 1996.Since 1996, the Government has taken a programme of opium eradication, moving downhigh villages and merging small villages into bigger one, which aims at increasing cross-check between different ethnic groups in a certain new resettled area and strengtheninggovernment administration and political security of area.In 2004, the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party Politburo has issued instruction No. 09which aim: 1) strengthening local political system including local parties, mass-organizations; youths and women unions, etc.; 2) security; 3) economic development; and4) social and culture development. After issuing No. 9 instruction, the process of movingdown highland villages and then merging into lower villages has promoted faster inLuang Prabang province as well as Lao National wide (see details: annex 1&2).10 1) Production Forests ("Village Use Forest" at the local level): used on a regular basis for nationaldevelopment requirements and for people’s livelihoods on a sustainable basis; 2) Conservation Forests:protection and conservation of animals and plant species or other entities of cultural, tourism or scientificvalue; 3) Protection Forests: protection of watershed and prevention of soil erosion and also includingareas with national security significance; 4) Regeneration Forests: young fallow prohibited for agriculturein order to increase tree maturity and reach a natural equilibrium; 5) Degraded Forests: heavily damaged,classified for tree planting and oral location to individuals or organizations for economic purposes inaccordance with national economic plans.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 92nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 10. Unfortunately, the process of Forests and Land Allocation; resettled and mergedprogrammes by Government bodies have created overlapping and contradictions to strongexistence of traditional customary laws, acceptance and respect on forest and landmanagement, practice and ownership by communities. One of main reasons was theimplementation process did not achieve sufficient learning and encouraging internalstrengths and cultural values of each ethnic groups. Several different ethnic groups areplanned compulsorily to settle in a certain new common village, so vulnerable groupstended to move freely or come back their ancestor land to ensure livelihoods and maintaintheir cultural spaces (i.e. sacred forest, trees, ancestral tombs, where their traditionalbeliefs and ceremonies are nurtured). This lead to unavoidable overlapping betweentraditional land and new allocated land on a certain plot of land.IV.3. Problem analysis in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat:Tribal people of Lao PDR have built their harmonious human – ecological life throughseveral generations. They attain rich culture, abundant local knowledge, which set afoundation of the beautiful Lao country.As mentioned above, since 1975, resettlements, merging villages, land allocationimplementation and other intervention programs have not taken well thorough study,analysis of community in terms of psychology, beliefs, livelihoods and their other concernsuch as health and education. That caused crisis of community belief, daily livelihood,and healthcare. Resettlement and merging villages particularly resulted in landoverlapping and conflict between moving resettled villagers, who want to come back tocontinue belief practice according to their customary laws and new land owners, who areformally certified by the government.1. Overlapping on land and forest use and managmentThe government planned to merge households from Nha Kha Luang into Den Xa Vangvillage and Long Ngau households into Phon Xa Vat village in 1996. However Nha KhaLuang and Long Ngau villagers did not come to live in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat,they then moved to live in Na Xam Phan village. After the villagers’ moving from formervillages of Nha Kha Luang and Long Ngau to Na Xam Phan, district authority allocatedNha Kha Luang land to Den Xa Vang and Long Ngau to Phon Xa Vat in 1997.In 1999, district authorities allocated Temporary Land Use Certificates - TLUC (so-calledblue or grey certificates) which was financed by European Union project to households inwhich include new merging households in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat villages. Thenew merging households who mostly belong to Mong group from Long Vai and Long Cutmoved to Phon Xa Vat and Den Xa Vang villages.The land allocation programe faced shortage of long-term planning and reality because ofa little participation of villagers, weak involvement of villagers’ initiatives, traditionalknowledge of mapping and boundaries, traditional ownership and practices on naturalresources, particularly land and forests. Especially the role of respected elders in solvingland conflicts base on their own customary laws within community and betweenneighbouring communities.In 2006, villagers of Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat villages were allocated PermanentLand Use Certificates - PLUC (yellow certificates). This allocation basically formalizeCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 102nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 11. data, mapping, document of 1999 temporal allocation. However, out-dated document andincorrect land certificates emerged because of changes due to continuous free resettlementof villages, households and new reclaimed land surrounding temporary allocated land.With PLUC, owners can transfer easily if they complete a contract and village head’sapproval. The growth of unthoughtful careless land market caused unfair, un-transparenttrading of land, and then vulnerable villagers started facing shortage of land 11. Thisprocess went along with promotion of cash crops and marketization, so it triggered forestclearance for new cultivating land. This situation also attracted a part of farmers to neglecttraditional organic farming to jump in industrial plantation and application of herbicides,pesticide and new high productivity species. Those changes resulted in rapid forest, land,water exhaustion, and environment degradation and increasing endanger of inter-generation livelihoods.Land conflict started to happen in 2005 between Mong formerly cultivate in Nha KhaLuang and Long Ngau and Mong merging to live in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat(during 1999 to 2003). The former villagers thought the land is their traditional ancestors’heritage for their continuous practice of beliefs and worshipping ancestors. They cameback former villages to cultivate, free cattle without consent of Den Xa Vang and PhonXa Vat administrative managers – who were formally accepted by district authorities. Themoving households did not receive temporary brown land certificates as well as formeryellow certificates. They did not pay tax, and local authorities have no foundation tocollect tax.The new resettled households according to Government merging village programmereceived allocated land. They obtained temporary land certificates in 1999 and thenpermanent land use certificates in 2006. However they could not practice cultivation since2005, because Na Xam Phan villagers came back to interrupt. They could not pay tax tothe government because they could not cultivate.Overlapping problem was reported by households, who are allocated land in 1999 andleaders of Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat to district authorities. District officers12 weresent to solve problem some times, but they could not get achievement.Solidarity, cooperation is negatively affected by between Kho Mu and Mong groups, whoresettled in Den Xa Vang, Phon Xa Vat and Mong group, who moved to Nha Kha Luangand Long Ngau. Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat villagers and former Nha Kha Luang andLong Ngau villagers do not feel comfortable in production and practice their belief. Thegovernment cannot implement well, effectively management of land and tax collection.Overlapping, disputes from compulsory resettlement, merging villages of different ethniccultural groups, land allocation with shortage of community resolution are reasons of land11 For instance, 20 households planting on total 49.2 ha of teak in Den Xa Vang, recently 70% of the teakarea has been sold out to outsiders. In Phon Xa Vat, there are two different streams of opinions: 1) Villagehead confirm that, no one sold land, they merely sold out teak; 2) Though many Phon Xa Vat villagers andvillage head of Den Xa Vang said, teak and its land had been sold to outsiders?!. Two sides of land transfermay made informal contract without village head’s certification which do not register into village land bookaccording to the laws.12 “District authorities twice invited leaders from the two villages to district administrative office andCadastral department on September 14th 2009, but they could not reach agreement. They had suggested toprovincial authorities, but it was not solved successfully. Phon Xa Vat villagers wanted to raise 10 cows atNha Kha Luang area, but villagers of former Nha Kha Luong did not agree. District Department of Agro-forestry recommended that, let Den Xa Vang villagers to raise animals there, but Na Xam Phan villagers didnot follow. Only 5 Na Xam Phan households cultivate at their former village. However, whenever happenconflict, they call all villagers to involve” (Mr. Som Sac, district officer)Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 112nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 12. conflicts, especially those belonging to traditional cultural spaces, e.g. sacred forest andcultivating land. If those problems are not timely resolved peacefully on the basis ofcommunity solidarity and customary laws, insecurity and conflict will be able to happenheavily in the future. If conflicts do not keep in term of land, not within separated smallcases, but become conflict of beliefs, cultural systemsof different ethnic group in a certain administration “I am a typical person forunit in a larger scale, popular phenomena, it will disagreement against taxpossibly happen ethnic conflicts and unexpected payment and involvement in anyconsequences. government activities orIn order to respond well the mentioned situation, to implement their policies. Theysolve problem successfully, a pilot model moved us down, but onlydevelopment programme with inter-cultural approach offerred us one plot of field, wein villages of Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat is have not enough cultivatinghighly necessary. This should aim at setting up land, so how can we survive?methodology and recommendation for the We have suggested, butgovernment to consider, apply to improve their policy government officers merelymaking and implementation at macro scale to solve promiss several times withoutpopular problems. The mentioned programme should any results” Mr. Nenh Chia,encourage and maximize the role, reputation of Den Xa Vang village saidelders, who are key actor of traditional socialstructure and customary law, which is core element oftraditional institution. That approach will release overload tasks for the government whilecommunity’s initiatives and capacity will be enhanced for better resolutions of their ownproblems in a durable, feasible and peaceful way.2. Shortage of cultivating landCausesAs mentioned at the above problem of “the overlapping on land and forest use andmanagement” which not only cause to conflict overland, but lead to shortage ofcultivating land. Therefore, resettled households and new establishing households cannotget land for cultivation at the areas of old villages of Nha Kha Luong and Long Ngau.Cultivating land which has been allocated permacnent land use certificats to householdsis changing from grain cultivation to teak and rubber plantation13. Then land with teakand rubber is transferred freely to outsiders. This is one of the main reasons of shortage ofcultivating landNew establishing households increasingly grow while preserved land in Den Xa Vang islimilted Phon Xa Vat has not any preserved land for new established households.According to Phon Xa Vat villagers, there is no more area for expanding land forcultivation in their village. Now there is only preserved cultivating land exists at LongNgau and Huoi Noc watershed area. However, overlapping of land still remains asmentioned above, so villagers cannot access land to cultivate, because grain cultivatingland at Nha Kha Luang and Long Ngau was taken by Na Xam Phan villagers for theircattle raising. If overlapping problem is solved, villagers who lack of cultivating land inPhon Xa Vat will be able to get enough land for grain crops.13 Villagers confirm that, this is main cause of shortage of land for grain production.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 122nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 13. ConsequencesShortage of cultivating land of Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat is resulted from landoverlapping14 between Phon Xa Vat and former Long Ngau; Den Xa Vang and formerNha Kha Luang village. Recently there are 22 households in Den Xa Vang and 16households in Phon Xa Vat facing shortage of cultivating land. They are households whoresettled to merge into new village or new establishing households. Most of them alsolack of food, unstable life and they have to sell labour to rock exploitation companies15,rubber plantation or sell labour seasonally16 in Luang Prabang city.Resettled households in village merging programme react explicitly to the governmentagencies, who have not allocated land to them. They often refuse to pay tax and do notinvolve in government programmes?Some households have to borrow land for cultivation for some years. Some householdspreviously had 3 plots of field, and then sold out one plot, or some had 2 plots, sold outone. They simply transfer yellow land certificate, but do not report and get certification ofvillage leaders to hide away from taxation. Therefore village leaders cannot update andmanage real situation17.Shortage of cultivating land cause pressure to take forest for making new fields or expandcurrent fields.3. Shortage of drinking water and polluted waterDrinking water system in Den Xa VangThe first water supply was supported by EU to be built in 1996, which takes water fromHuoi Hia. Second water system was built in 2002, which takes water source from HuoiYen, but there is not available water. This system was supported by EU to be repaired in2004, and takes water from Huoi Noc source.Construction process: Village suggested in writing to district authorities for drinkingwater system construction (1996-2004), then district officers were sent to check watersource. After finding out fresh water source, district officers made estimation andsuggestion for EU financial support. District officers came to discuss on responsibilitiesof villagers. The project supported technically, and construction company was in chargeof design18. Villagers were responsible for making holes, cover water pipes, contributeneeded wood and contribute labour for fixing water system. After one month ofguarantee, construction company transferred the system to the village. Villagers did notknow amount of money for construction and procedure of transfering water system.According to design, there should be three water container tanks (at the top source, middle14 Government allocate land on Long Ngau and Nha Kha Luang to resettled households who newly mergedinto Den Xa Vang, Phon Xa Vat. Because of overlapping, villagers could not cultivate.15 About 20 to 25 households sell labour regularly sell labour to rock exploitation company in Phon Xa Vatvillage.16 Each of the villages of Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vạt have 10 households often work at leisured time asconstruction workers at Luang Prabang city.17 Five households moved from Huoi Noc to live in Vang Vieng. Then they sold out their land to Na XamPhan villagers.18 Mr. Pheng’s company constructed in 1996; Mr. Bun Thieng’s company carried out construction during2002-2004. Those private companies hired district technicians and local labour for the construction work.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 132nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 14. of the system and farmost end of the village). However they have not built the middle onewhile provides reason that, water flow is strong enough, so there is no need to build this?!Current situation: Water system built in 1996 is currently useful, but little waterprovision because of small pipeline. System from Huoi Yen source built in 2002 is uselessbecause there is no water. Water system from Huoi Noc source operated well in three firstmonths, then it is always broken down, villagers have to repair every four or five days.Because of regular water blockage, villagers turned up and exposed water pipeline on theground. They use a bicycle basket to cover at the top water source for filtering and reduceblockage. Villagers have set up regulations of water management and a group of watersource conservation. According to the regulation, each households contribute 2,000 kipsper month. Villagers have discovered a violation case of unfix water pipeline for bathing,and applied a fine of 300,000 kips against that Phon Xa Vat violator.Dringking water system in Phon Xa VatEU project supported to dig wells and a hand pump in the village for the first phase in1980. That was suitable and sufficient for such a small village with little households.Because of big increasing population since 1999, villagers faced shortage of water, andthen they have to make suggestion to district authorities. District authorities asked EU forsupport construction in 1999, then EU project transferred budget to construction companyof Mr. Phan after applying procedures, which are similar to those of Den Xa Vang. Thatdrinking water system was broken after one year, and villagers repaired very difficultlybecause pipeline was covered more than one meter depth. During reparation, they dug andbroke the pipeline. The pipeline is so small and blocked because of lime water, sovillagers are unable to repair after several trying times. This pipeline system is unfixedand taken back to the village.The system consists of two water tanks, a water intake at the top water source and onewater containing tank nearby community house in the village. There were four waterproviding points in the village in the first year, and then only one exists so far because oflimited amount of water.Recently former Long Ngau villagers free their cattle and other animals at the watershedarea, that make water source polluted.CausesNumbers of households increase three times (Den Xa Vang only had 30 households in1996, now there are 93 households), so water is not available for such a large population.Villagers had a little opportunity to involve, discuss during designing and constructingwater system. The designers did not pay respect and attention to contributing ideas ofvillagers. Without suitable exploration and design, water system became useless.Protection and cleaning up at the top water source is not carried out regularly, so water ispolluted.Watershed forest is damaged because of pressure of broadening fields for grain crops.Water is polluted because villagers have not worked out agreement on watershed area useand management between former Long Ngau and Phon Xa Vat villages. Villagers fromNa Xam Phan raise animals at the water source intake of Phon Xa Vat villagers.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 142nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 15. Free animal raising remains popularly in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat, though Den XaVang villagers started to make planning and organize groups of animal raising, somehouseholds still keep animals freely. This is one of the causes of polluted water that isused daily for drinking, washing.Villagers have been using herbicide and pesticide for 5 years so far.ConsequencesWater source is increasingly exhausted, so it cannot serve the whole village. Villagers,especially women and children have to travel further and further for taking fresh water.Water source is polluted because of damaging forest, free animal raising at watershed areaand herbicide application. Many children suffer from skin diseases because of watersource.Phon Xa Vat villagers use water from well for drinking. Only the first water taker maytake fresh water, the next would take unclean water. This water source is not so goodquality and easily become polluted because of free animal raising.Some children suffer from diarrhea and other digesting diseases because of drinking waterthat is not boiled.4. Free animal raisingCausesFree animal raising is inherent practices of Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat villagers.Villagers did not have planning for pig raising. Though villagers have made planning forraising cattle, only households with many cattle follow to keep them in the planning area.Regulation19 of ban on free animal raising is not resulted from villagers’ discussion andagreement, then villagers do not follow.Some people often buy and use pigs, chicken from outside to the village.ConsequencesAnimal diseases often happen. According to district veterinary officer, who join needsassessment study, animal diseases happen every year in both Den Xa Vang and Phon XaVat. That is very different from Long Lan, where pig raising area is planned, strictregulations and supervision to prevent from importing outside food, animal seeds. LongLan steadily keeps out of animal diseases for a long time, excluding a disease happened in2003.Excrement from free animal on the one hand pollutes environment, villagers lose a sourceof manure on the other hand.Free cattle damage vegetable, crops of villagers, spread out animal diseases, it also affectsnegatively to community solidarity.19 This regulation is set up in introduced by district officers.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 152nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 16. 5. Cross-cutting issue ‘Respecting and inheriting local knowledge and participation’ As mentioned above, tribal people of Lao PDR have built their harmonious human – ecological life through several generations. They attain rich culture, abundant local knowledge, which set a foundation of the beautiful Lao country. Since 1976 almost programs that have been implemented in the two villages have paid not or very little attention on respecting and inheriting local knowledge and participation which including their traditional values and belief practice, all respects of local knowledge and ways for livelihoods and daily practices. That caused to crisis of community beliefs, daily livelihood, healthcare and damage of inherent solidarity, sharing between different communities. Practical indicators show that are ovelapping on land, forest and water useage; water constructions were not maintained well, villagers do not practice ‘community regulations’. V. Outcomes from NAS from October 10th – November 2nd, 2009 V.1. Identified Objectives The Overall Objective Strengthening and sustaining the cultural identity (traditional structure, norms, beliefs and community solidarity) and livelihood of indigenous groups (Mong and Kho Mu) in two village, Luang Prabang district which is towards equality within and outside of indigenous groups, particularly indigenous women in the process of self-determination of development for Mong and Kho Mu communities in Luang Prabang.1. Mid-term Objectives 1. Setting up pilots on enriching customary law in NRM among Mong and Kho Mu indigenous groups in two villages of the Phu Sung watershed area for sustainable NRM and for lobbying, of which ensures:  Maintaining and inheriting traditional norms, beliefs, community solidarity and communal governance;  Promoting and improvement of local livelihoods through enhancing local knowledge practices in farming, herbal medicine, handicraft, non-timber forest production collection, etc. for better jobs and income generations;  Sustainable use and management of natural resources (i.e. watershed, protected, productive and sacred forests, and farming) which indicate as empirical indicators for policy research, and training on customary laws in NRM for indigenous youths; 2. Contributing to raising public awareness (the formal system and society) for social recognition of and lobby for legalizing advanced customary laws in NRM of indigenous groups in Luang Prabang (i.e. Mong, Lao Lum and Kho Mu). Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 16 2nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW funding contribution
  • 17. Short-term objectivesCapacity of villagers in identifying and analysis their problems, implementing, using andmaintaining their own resources for livelihood security in Phon Xa Vat and Den Xa Vangwill be improved through different short-term needs:1. To resolve overlapping on land use planning based on local knowledge andcustomary laws which make sure land security to villagers in Den Xa Vang, Phon Xa Vatas well as villagers in Na Xam Phan for their beliefs practice and daily livelihoods.Overlapping of land between former villagers, who removed to other area, then cameback their ancestral land and new merging villagers, who formally receive land certificate;2. To mobilising villagers to contribute knowledge, skills and resources to improvewater system in order to provide enough clean drinking water for all villagers of twovillages;3. To strengthen women understanding capacity in birth control (unexpectedpregnancy and giving birth) by applying different suitable solutions, especially for KhoMu women;4. To improve knowledge, skills and effective in farming, animal raising, villagesanitation relating to free animal raising and toilets through study tours, training,exchanging on husbandry, veterinary, and prevention of livestock diseases.V.2. Solutions for problems in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat villages1. Overlapping on land and forest use and managmentAccording to ‘Thao Ke20’, the most importantfoundation is looking back history of sharing ‘Even national borderharmonious, friendly life of people, and basing oncustomary laws of Mong and Kho Mu. We cannot disputes between Laos andsolve things through only legal justification while Vietnam; Laos and Thailand areour feelings are not so good towards each other. resolved, it is reasonable to solveThao Ke also questioned that, why do parentsgeneration spend time for quarrel, while their such a little conflicts betweenchildren like each other? We should solve those communities sharing similaroverlapping internally and friendly. This should culture within Laos’ - Elder Lybase on community customary laws and the role ofThao Ke. Thao Ke suggested that: Pao – leader of Luang Prabang Mong association.1. Meeting between Thao Ke should be held incommunities containing conflict and theirsurrounding communities, especially Thao Ke of Long Lan village to get reasonableadvice and assistance. After this meeting, we will recognize what steps should be next.Thao Ke suggested Mr. Li Pao to coordinate and organize meeting between Thao Ke, sothat to settle overlapping problems. We hope that, with solutions, that base on peacefulsharing, customary laws, and people will solve out conflict and maintain, develop inherent20 Thao Ke is an elder who is reputable, knowledgeable persons in community.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 172nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 18. solidarity, sharing within and between communities. Reputable, influencing persons21from district should be invited.2. Then we will invite district authorities to certify our agreement.3. This will become practical pilot model for sharing experiences, lesson learnt of howto solve overlapping problem for younger generations.4. Set up regulations of land, water and forest use, management base on customary lawsof Mong and Kho Mu. Those regulations should not only introduce within a certainvillage, but also to surrounding communities22.5. Suggest relevant agencies to review land area in overlapping villages, then considerjustifying border, to meet both requirement community ownership and legal landallocation in Den Xa Vang, Phon Xa Vat villages as well as Na Xam Phan village. Thisreview and justify process should involve community representatives. Villagerepresentatives and district authorities should discuss to get suitable mechanism of landuse and management for overlapping areas.2. Shortage of cultivating land1. Suggest to district authorities to check land areas and reallocate land to the landless;2. Set up regulations, that forbid transferring land to outsiders, and restricts changingfrom food tree cultivation to such industrial plants as rubber and teak.3. Find suitable cultivating way on current land situation, that does not depend onindustrial plantation;4. Set up regulations of forest protection, management base on customary laws and redoland planning;5. Solve out completely land overlapping with former Long Ngau and Nha Kha Luangbase on Mong and Kho Mu customary laws (see detailed solutions in above section).3. Shortage of drinking water and polluted waterDen Xa Vang1. Encourage contribution of labour, skills, money to upgrade existing water system.2. Set up regulations of water system use, protection, management, collecting fee formanaging and repairing the system, especially watershed area and water intake. Theregulations should be introduced in community of Den Xa Vang, Phon Xa Vat andwatershed areas.3. Provide training on skills, techniques relating to maintenance and reparation of watersystem.21 For instance, Mr. Xay Vu, Xay Ly in Na Xam Phan village.22 Mr. Januly from Long Lan village said: Long Lan used to overlap land with Ca Xia village. Though wehad discussed in district Agro-forestry department, but we could not come up an agreement. Then Long Lanset up regulations, but we could not implement well in the first year. Then some Ca Xia animals lost, weinform Ca Xia villagers to list number of their raising animals and exact location of their animals. If theyfailed to do this, we would not take responsibility for their losing animals. This is actually the way to applyregulations of Long Lan.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 182nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 19. Phon Xa Vat1. Solve land overlapping and set up regulations on animal raising at watershed area offormer Long Ngau village (see above solution in section 1).2. Encourage contribution of labour, skills, money to upgrade existing water system.3. Set up regulations of water system use, protection, management, collecting fee formanaging and repairing the system, especially watershed area and water intake. Theregulations should be introduced in community of Phon Xa Vat, Long Ngau wherecontain and water intake.4. Invite technicians to assist fixing water system to the village. Provide training ontechniques, skills for maintenance and reparation of water system.4. Free animal raising1. Study tour to common animal raising pilot model of Long Lan village and exchangeexperiences of setting up and implementing animal raising regulations;2. All villagers discuss and agree on planning of village animal raising areas, or interestgroup, or common animal raising of groups of households as Den Xa Vang model.3. Villagers involve in discussion, agreement, setting up and implementing regulations ofanimal raising, supervision and prevention from animal diseases. The regulations shouldbe introduced in community of Phon Xa Vat, Den Xa Vang and traders, who take animalsin and out of the villages.4. Exchange experiences, training on prevention and treatment for popular animaldiseases, especially encourage traditional methods and application of local herbalmedicine.5. Cross-cutting issue1. Strengthening the understanding and capacity for key villagers of Den Xa Vang andPhon Xa Vat through study tours for villagers to Long Lan, Xiang Da, Nam Kha villages,which had coped with similar problem and successfully solved. This will help Kho Mu torecognize why they have to sell labour, sell land to afford their children’s education? Whyis land so essential to Kho Mu community? How are cultural values meaningful to forestand vice versus? Then they will not sell land to anyone else, because if one sold out land,she or he would sell out their own values.2. Inherit community spirits to reorganize community organizations to promote the roleof elders. Redo community land planning and redo land allocation for landless villagerswhich is based on integrated between traditional customary laws and government policies.Cooperate with key-farmers from Long Lan, Xiang Da, Nam Kha villages for assistingdevelopment process of Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat villages.3. Set up regulations protection, use and management of land, forest, water resource,sanitation base on community customary laws for community self-management, which issimilar to Long Lan lesson.4. Expending lessons learned which are based on Long Lan village and the network ofMong (so-called Mong association in Luang Prabang) to Kho Mu group in two villages aswell as their surrounding villages;Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 192nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 20. 5. Community regulations will not only be shared, discussed and introduced among eachvillage, but also be shared and informed to surrounding villages;6. Integrate and socialize community customary laws in natural resource management,cultural conservation and development for stronger village and inter-villages in a stable,self-sufficient, sustainable life.V.3. Lessons learned from NAS23To achieve the expected outputs from III.2.3.1 and III.2.3.224 in workshop of “customarybased community development” platform, facilitator guided the process through fivelevels of activities A-D (see annex 3).LEVEL A. Sharing with participants from other regions the concepts and contextualunderstanding of local cultural based community development and natural resourcemanagement.Step A1. There were two days (Oct, 10/11) ofparticipatory learning involving SPERI/CHESHLao juniors, K1A students, volunteers, seniors,experts and local authorities through role playactivities and group discussion.Following this were two days (Oct, 12/13) of largertraining workshops. Participants included threeteachers from the Forestry and Agriculturaldepartment of Suphanouvoong University, high ranking Luang Prabang province officialsfrom the communist party office, officials from the Cultural department, Forestry andAgricultural department, Investment department, important leaders of Lao Lum, Kho Muand Mong, key farmers and elders from the villagesXiang Da, Nam Kha and Long Lan, those from thetwo new target villages of Den Xa Vang and PhonXa Vat and staff and students of SPERI / CHESH.(Participants have been mentioned previously in thedocument)Five key issues were raised for discussion: 1)Cultural Identity, 2) Forest – Land and Water, 3)Livelihood, 4) Health and Happiness and 5) Industrialization. Participants were dividedinto groups, one group for each issue, they voluntarily chose what issue they would like todiscuss and debate.After people had chosen their groups, we found that no one wanted to concern themselveswith the key issue of Health and Happiness! This outcome perhaps reflects that currently23 NAS = Need Assessment Study24 III.2.31. To have a detailed image of the cultural socio-economic and healthcare situation of the communities in thetwo target villages;III.2.3.2. To understand challenges, problems, opportunities, potentials for development of the two villages in creationof a foundation for socialization and legalization of ethnic knowledge and belief in land and forest management in thetwo villages;Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 202nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 21. in Luang Prabang, people, farmers, academics, authorities and NGOs are all feelingsatisfied!So we went ahead in discussion and debate of four key issues: 1) Cultural Identity 2)Forest – Land and Water; 3) Livelihood; 4) Industrialization.Step A2. Recognition and learning about key issues by group discussion and criticaldebate inside the group:Group 1) Cultural Identity; Participants includedelders, women from the village, officials from theCultural department and one culturist from Vietnam.Group 2) Forest – Land and water; participantsincluded local authorities and two teachers from theuniversity.Group 3) Livelihood; participants included those fromformer Xiang Da, Nam Kha, Long Lan and farmers from the two new project village’s ofDen Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat.Group 4) Industrialization; participants included authorities,volunteers and experts from Vietnam - to share the challenges,threats and lesson learned including social and environmentalproblems as results of industrialization in Vietnam.After 7 hours of discussion and debate, the 4 groups presentedtheir results in plenary in the morning of day two.Step A3. Plenary free debate and question time, grouppresentation, finding common problems and solutions.Lesson learned from plenary debates:Declaration A3.1.Cultural identity is interdependent with Forest – Land – Water which surrounds andsupports the livelihoods of people. Without Forest – Land - Water, livelihoods,particularly farmers who are living in mountainous areas could not survive and Culturalidentity would be eroded!Solutions A3.1:1. Preserve Forest – Land – Water carefully in order to maintain livelihood and culturalidentity and diversity;2. Re-allocate Forest – Land - Water using approaches that are participatory andtransparent.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 212nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 22. 3. Give space25 for farmers to maintain their own ethnic knowledge and customary lawin; nurturing forest, farming practice, herbal medicine practice, reinvigorating handicraftsfor women and the practice of spiritual beliefs. Create opportunities for exchange to openup the possibility of the recognition by others of the value of ethnic knowledge and belief.Declaration A 3. 2.Forest – Land – Water at the current moment are facing many challenges including:shifting cultivation, replacement by rubber plantation, free market influences – the poorare selling land to the rich – for example – Chinese – American - rich businessmen! Withsuch influences local people lack land for rice cultivation; threatening their basicsurvival. Cultural degradation and deforestation are also prevalent in this situation.Solutions A.3.2:1. Calls for educational exchange tours of industry centers in neighboring countries forhigh ranking officials and local authorities to raise awareness of the dangers and issues inexploiting primary natural resources for industrialization and modernization as a Statestrategy and state policy lead land market between skillful buyer and poor farmer;2. Capacity building for state specialized officers and teachers in University26 in orderto change the prevalent attitude of applying one way top down decision making andplanning without feedback from the bottom up through dialogue, debate and consultation;3. Intensive learning and exchanging in order to again deeper of different cultural valuefor further approach and decision making for one year pilot of new coming two villages;4. Interaction and networking with key farmers and elders of Xiang Da, Nam Kha andLong Lan27 to exchange solutions and train trainers.Declaration A3.3Be careful with big projects such as mining, hydropower and commercial plantations,large operations have the potential to go wrong and destroy the environment, culture,livelihoods and values. We must understand who gains and who loses from these bigprojects.Solution A3.3:1. Opportunities for high-ranking Lao officials tounderstand current impacts and issues ofindustrialization. The need to share the real benefits ofindustrialization between companies – people – theenvironmental and cultural aspect?!2. Identification of environmental and cultural issuessurrounding big industrialization projects and clarify these issues clearly and transparentlywith participation from the community as part of the decision making process.25 Need to monitoring and re-evaluation almost Land and Forest’s overlap situation which raised by free migrationbefore the war, topdown migration after the war without state professional master planning and bottom participation ofpeople?!26 Said: “We should not allocate land and forest to the farmer as they are backward and it is easy for them to sell thatland to the outsider” – In the afternoon of October 14th, 200927 Key farmer and elders from Xiang Da – Nam Kha – Long Lan in coming three years will be “development worker”who coordinate and facilitate the new program in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat Phon Xa VatCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 222nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 23. LEVEL B. Xiang Da, Nam Kha and Long Lan key farmers, elders together withmembers from the new villages of Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat sat together inorder to continue to review the previous two days of workshop and reflect. (October13 PM, 2009)Lesson learned from the talk:Step B 1.:Members of the two new villages revealed and reflected that there were gaps betweenthem and other participants in the workshop; they are lacking land for farming, lackingopportunities to understand the outside world and suffering from hunger. They wereunconfident in raising issues concerning their own suffering livelihood.Solution B.1.A selection of participants went on a field trip fortwo days to Long Lan (Oct 14th – 15th) forobservation of real solutions and to listen to theelders and key farmers explain their developmentand conservation process from 1999 – 2009. Fromoutcomes of the previous two days we clarified thatthere are 7 topics to explore at the village, as bellow:Topic 1: Herbal medicinal forest – Herbalknowledge and Herbal spirit, lesson learned in LongLan.Topic 2: No Song ceremony in relationship to traditional Mong social economic, politicalcivil society structure and forest management in Long Lan.Topic 3: ‘Tong Xenh’ religion and the conservation of biological and cultural diversity.Topic 4: Traditional methods of setting up and maintaining interest groups for; animalhusbandry, handicrafts, water resource management, road maintenance and vegetablecultivation and marketing.Topic 5: Application of traditional knowledge in Land use planning.Topic 6: Conflict resolution inside and outside the community.Topic 7: How to become a new member of the village.Step B. 2. Elders addressed each of the 7 topics for everyone involved, outlining the main pointsinvolved in each with discussion and questions raised from other participants. Opendebate one day and one day field transect cutting observation between farmer – elders ofLong Lan, Xiang Da, Nam Kha, Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat (October 14 – 15, 2009)Solution B. 2.1. Opening talk from Elder Cho Sy Yang: A prestigiouselder and official of Luang Prabang district. Thirty minutesgiven for introductions of all participants with a shortoutline of their reason for participation;Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 232nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 24. 2. During most of the day of the 14th October, elder and advisor Xay Khu Yang sharedhis experience and understanding of the above 7 topics andincluded a talk on the historical background of Long Lan;3. In the morning of the 15th of October we continued toshare and exchange views about the above topics, with theparticipation of two more village elders, some advancedfarmers and more women;4. In the afternoon of the 15th, we divided into two groups:1) CHESH Laos and SPERI staff and two representativesfrom each village; who were to go to the garden up on the top of the mountain to learnabout vegetable growing, cow raising and lemon grass. 2) Elders, some advanced farmersand facilitators with key prestigious elder Mr Xay Khu Yang sat together in order tolisten and learn from the two new project villages.There are one key challenge and three difficulties of the twonew villages that were outlined from the two dayexchanging – debate and field observation as the following:A key and the most urgent challenge is conflicts overfarming land between Kho Mu of both Den Xa Vang andPhon Xa Vat with Mong who were resettled 20km away in199928 but have since come back to practice on theirtraditional lands which are now in the territory of the twonew project villages;Three difficulties: 1) Cleaning water for drinking; 2) Spaces for livestock husbandry; 3)lacking basic survival for children to go to school;After discussion, all elders including Xay Khu Yang and advanced farmers, togetherswore to be involved in further hand in hand NETWORK ACTION.Step B.3.There was an overview before continuing on to visit the next two villages. Divided in tothree groups: 1) Cultural identity and livelihood; 2) Cultural and Land Use for farming;3) Cultural and Land ownership situation - (see detail fieldsgroups information founded – October 16 – 17, 2009)Solutions B.3.1:1. Plenary meeting to overview social – economic, culturaland livelihood factors by key village leaders and farmers inboth Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat;2. Mapping of the village, transect diagram analysis in bothvillage;3. Individual interviews and group checking and whole village meeting in both twovillage;28 Resettlement without participation and consultation from farmers, especially push two different identities Kho Muand Mong living in one community – top down to Mong psychological heart, then Mong moving to another place nearby Nam Kham road 20 km awayCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 242nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 25. 4. Women’s meetings to raise issues from their perspective, on the evening of 16th inDen Xa Vang and on the 17th in Phon Xa Vat.5. Youth meeting for open debate among girls and boy in order to observe their ownpsychology and their dreaming for their own future?!Key findings from B.3.1:B.3.1. a. Due to two challenges29 (stated below) whichinteract at the macro policy level we recognized theneed for Visionary Planning and case study researchon “Land policy and resettlements of Mong and KhoMu in Northern Lao PDR since 1975 - 1996 - 1999 –2004 – 2006” :1. Lacking of Land for livelihood farming fromOverlap of farming land of those who have resettled“bureaucratic resettlement 1975, combination in 1996, land allocation 1999 and mixedidentity 2004, so called community development policies since 1975 – 1996 – 1999 –2004 - 2006” without participation and transparent master land use planning andadministrative management system;2. Conflict over land for livelihood since 2005 between Kho Mu and Mong in bothvillages due to the bureaucratic resettlement 1999 and market lead land 2006;B.3.1.b. Due to two issues30 (stated below) we recognized the need for strategic planningfor a good resolution, which needs the coordinated involvement of a diversity ofstakeholders.1. Farmers in both villages have been using herbicides since 2005 upuntil now without any monitoring or control from the local authority;2. The villagers are selling land for their children to go to schoolwithout consultancy or advice from the local authority.B.3.1.c. Four urgent basic issues present the need for action planningto provide basic conditions for survival in the two villages1. Tourist companies entered and creating conflict31between villagers;2. Family planning32 is a big issue as women canbuy birth control medicine at any local shops nearbywithout any control or instruction from localgovernmental health care;3. Three different sanitation projects overlappedeach other (EU, State and Korean donor) there was29 This challenge was not addressed by Phon Xa Vat and Den Xa Vang during open shared at Long Lan discussion?!30 Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat using herbicides since 2005 and selling land for children can go to school are alsodid not honestly shared at Long Lan discussion?!31 Worse impact from tourist companies and inducing conflict between villagers was not mention openly at Long Landiscussion32 Family planning, overlapped between EU – Korean and State in water drinking system also did not honestlyaddressed at Long Lan open discussionCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 252nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 26. little participation from or consultancy with the villages. As a result of this insensitivity tothe villagers the systems fell into misused and caused villagers to feel mistrustful.4. Short-term urgent needs are to provide the two villages with a clean drinking watersystem and a clinic in their own conditionStep B.4.We returned to the two villages for further interviewing, re-examination of cross cuttingissues and plenary village meetings, to get feedback from the villagers and checkaccuracy and confirm all key findings. We also signed up advanced farmers and youth toparticipate in future training workshops. October 24th, 2009Solution B.4.1. We divided in two groups, one for each village inorder to present our key findings and receive feedbackfrom the villagers and pose further questions.2. There was the objective to gain more information onchallenges, conflicts an key factors related to the 7 keytopics ?which they have been mentioned since 1975 upuntil now, with the details of how and why they occurredand who were the key actors involved.Some of the questions that we saw as important are as follows:  What solutions would the farmers propose if they had the conditions, resources and opportunity to solve by themselves the issues that have been identified?  How will the experienced elders and key farmers from Long Lan village involve in future networking actions and solutions related to the key topics?  How can Kho Mu elders and key Farmers in Nam Kha village share in problems solving with the two new villages?  How can CHESH Lao and local Luang Prabang district and province officials provide legal and methodological support?  How can we share with BfDW about these 7 key topics;  How can Suphanuvoong University enter into these issues with new research programs relating to policy analysis and create urgently needed new teaching topics concerning cultural identity and natural resource management for the Luang Prabang region?.  How can we share and exchange with other NGOs in Lao about lessons learned in relationship to the issues that were identified at the two villages. How have they been working with issues that require long term solutions? (This section has been framed as questions for villagers, a few of these questions sound like questions for us, revise framing?)Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 262nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 27. Step B. 5.Information analysis, interpretation and processing, after two weeks of involvement with“Community based watershed management” at CHESH Lao office during October 25,26th,27th and 28 th 2009Solution B. 51. Each group summarized the details of the information gathered and the lessonslearned during past two weeks;2. Plenary presentations at CHESH with Lao staff and Mr. Phon Thip a coordinator ofPAFO;3. Problem tree diagram analysis carried out to find appropriate solutions.4. Synthesis of group output into a visionary master plan to meet upcoming challenges.Creation of an action plan for further meetings with elders, key farmers and newervillages corresponding with LEVEL C?!LEVEL C.Connecting Elders, village leaders and advanced farmers from Den Xa Vang and PhonXa Vat to those from Nam Kha, Xiang Da, Long Lan, representatives of the Mongassociation and Luang Prabang district officials for a training workshop andconsultancy; to give feedback, reflect and offer solutions on the difficult issues that facethe two villages. October 30th - 31st, 2009Solution C.1. Reflect on the Key findings and concerned raised from last two week assessmentsstudy in two villages in plenary presentation and work on problem trees with open debateand critical analysis;2. Divided two village in two groups discussion for “participatory awareness raising andcapacity building by open sharing and debate on the key findings and problem treesanalysis”;3. Plenary presentation of outcomes and get feedback from the participants in half AMOctober 31st;4. After tea break, divided in to two groups: 1) Group one involved of Key Elders anddynamic farmer in order to deepen gaining and understanding above key finding andcauses, consequences trees analysis; 2) Group second involved of selected advancedvillagers, women, youths and village leaders who has been involved from the beginningof October 11th of the Need Assessments Study period, they continue to discuss anotherthree identified problems, causes, consequences trees;5. A plenary discussion and debate in order to across confirmation of the wholeproblems, causes, consequences trees analysis and solutions for further steps in order tofinalize a master planning of action in one year pilot;6. Participatory selection of key farmer, elders and dynamic person who are involving inthe further strategic approach for one year pilot schedule;7. Meeting amongst elders, selected experienced farmers, dynamic women, youth inorder to get to know for further network action;Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 272nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 28. 8. Administrative and logistic such list full names and address, take portraits and recordtelephone of those for later communication and contact;9. Make arrangements for a meeting with participant who are teachers fromSuphanouvoong University and Luang Prabang provincial and district officials includingMong association representatives for presentation of findings from the two weeks ofassessment study – suggested November 2nd, 2009.LEVEL D. Involve Teachers from Suphanouvong University, officials from Luang Prabang district and provincial level and Mong association representatives in a plenary meeting with key farmers and elders from expand network, suggested in November 2 nd, 2009.Solution D.Identify and prioritize long term challenges with visionary planning and gain support fromPAFO, the Mong association, CHESH Lao, BfDW, Suphanouvoong University andRCSD from Social science faculty, Chiang Mai University.Conclusion by Facilitator (see details: annex 4). Outcome indicators 1. A key findings problems, causes, consequences and solutions be recognized by two villages, key farmer network, PAFO, CHESH Lao, and Mong association representative; 2. A Memorandum of Understanding between SPERI/CHESH Lao - PAFO – and RCSD1 (see details: annex 5); 3. A listed 10 Kho Mu youth from Den Xa Vang, Phon Xa Vat and Nam Kha with their personnel file under committed and supported of parent and legal support in the filing system of PAFO and CHESH Lao office; 4. An Advisory council of reputable elders, representative of Mong association, dynamic farmers be selected in cooperated with PAFO – CHESH Lao for further action (see details: annex 6); 5. A coordinator’s group be established for network action in further schedule (see details: annex 6); 6. Community based/customary law based natural resource management concept be recognized and valued by almost participants after almost 23 days started October 10th to November 2nd, 2009 of Need Assessments Study.V.4. Strategic planning 2009 - 20191. Strengthening & enriching customary law based watershed management to meetvalues (traditional cultural identities) crisis and land use planning questions (securityfarming system for livelihood of the poor)?!2. Upgrading & documenting experiences and lesson learned in to curriculum forlearning and teaching at FFSs (household – community – regional levels) to meetgrassroots’ traditional education system of the poor?!Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 282nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 29. 3. Professionalizing concept – definitions and approaches in to publication for sharingand exchanging to meet globalization’s dominant?! (Traditional healthy and happiness ofthe poor)?!4. “Scientific Council” in order to supervise for 10 year planning to meet weakness ofSPERI during working approach?! (to avoid any mistakes during working approaches)?!5. Contribute to grassroots’ PArticipation Share responsibility for Transparent andEquality – PASTE in Mekong region.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 292nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 30. AnnexesAnnex 1: Policy ReviewTime Policy and EventsBefore 1975 Shifting cultivation: - People used to practice shifting cultivation according to their own ethnic customs and practices; - Most of people had to move around because of war. Management, use and practice of land based on customary laws of each ethnic groups.1975-1976 Stabilization after war: - Lao Government formally managed after war; - Started resettlement activities; - People self-decided on location of village settlement of different ethnic groups (Mong, Kho Mu, Lao Lum, etc. )1985 - 1995 Start renovation, transforming from planning to market economy: - 1989: Series of policies on resource management, especially focusing on limitation of shifting cultivation. - Resettlement without participation and opinion contribution from people. - Gave up communal administrative level. District level took direct management of village; - Opium eradication (basically at Mong ethnic group). EU projects and others supported people to give up opium, including 1) land and forest allocation to villages and households; 2) drinking water; - Customary laws in land and resource management were not formally approved by Lao Government. Allocation of cultivating and wet rice land in Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat villages basically relied on villagers’ report of their traditional cultivating land (temporary allocation in 1999). Formal land allocation (with yellow land certificate33) was carried out in 2006.1996 Merging villages (small villages merged into bigger village; higher villages merged into downward villages). - Forestry law was passed in 1996 and Land Law in 1997. Those two laws replaced all related former laws and regulations regarding to land and forest; - No participation and opinion contribution from people;33 Owner of yellow land certificate obtain the following rights: land protection right; land use right; landusufruct right; right to transfer to the right, land use right inheritance – according to Article 53 of Land law.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 302nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 31. Time Policy and Events - Opium eradication; - Overlapping of border (in term of ownership perception and practices) between traditional existence and state policies of land and resource use and management. Though government allocated to households and individuals, but many among them could not practice their rights because the allocated land belonged to other traditional owners. This lead to complicated conflicts: 1) traditional owner continue their practice of land using for the reason of inherit of their ancestor land. Practically people accept this de facto status; 2) People with government allocated land got formal land certificate. However, those formal allocations cannot work in practice because of old traditional land user and community consent. Households with formal allocated land often send recommendation to village and district authorities for resolution. However, land overlapping still exists.1999 - Temporary land allocation to households and villagers. People reported their land using area to district cadastre, then district authority granted land certificate base on the villager’s report. Practically villagers did not report, or report their land area less than actual use because they could not afford tax34?! - Objective of land and forest allocation: o Management; o Tax collection.2004 - Instruction No 09 of Lao Revolutionary People Party dated June 8, 2004 on building up village and developing group of villages, which contain the following main contents: o 1) Strong political system (having Party branch, strong administration, Fatherland Front, youth union, women union and village reconciliation body; o 2) Defence and security; o 3) Economy; o 4) Socio-culture; Village merging process physically calculates number of households and villagers35 to ensure sufficient number households34 Household without reporting land were not granted temporary land certificate in 1999 and formal yellowland certificate in 2006. So, they have no rights to transfer, mortgage according to Lao laws. They oftentransfer inside community (if transfer happen). Whoever did not report would not pay tax to Governmentbecause there was no base for tax calculation and collection. The question is still not answered clearly that,is it true that, no transfer land to outsiders if there is no formal yellow land certificates?!35 According to Instruction 09, a village should have at least 200 villagers in highland; 500 villagers in lowland; and 1,000 inhabitants in cities.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 312nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 32. Time Policy and Events of a new merging big village. Different ethnic groups (Mong and Kho Mu) merged into one village, but they did not ready integrate in terms of culture, social relation and production organization. The new resettlement communities do not have spaces for practicing their beliefs, daily habits in the new merging village. It turned out that, Lao Government’s objective of cultural identity maintain and development was unable to interpret and achieve in reality. Communities, villages cannot keep and promote their inherent effective self-management system, which links closely to their cultural identity values and daily practices. - Moving and merging villages resulted in compulsory resettlement or free resettlement without planning, so the government cannot control situation. - Restriction of slash and burn fields.2006 - Formal land allocation to households’ base on temporary land allocation result of 1999. Formal allocated land area (in yellow certificate) is popularly smaller than actual using area.2009 Unstable livelihood of local people in terms of: - Land - Belief and cultural identity - Environment - Daily practices - Rights? - Formation of land market.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 322nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 33. Annex 2: Visionary Analysis and Inter-Cultural CommunityDevelopment ApproachCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 332nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 34. Annex 3: Diagrams to describe steps of level A to D For Development workers Find appropriated& adaptable steps & touching ‘C-D-CD’ Step A - Level A Valuing wishes-prayer-will-opinion-revealing-sensitivity Intention, design, aspiration though dream, interaction, knowledge, interest and concern, skill, attitude, behavior Perceiving differences-diverse psychology from participation Gaining real interest and concern from participants (diverse) Exchange SWOT concerning ‘C-D-CD’ via role play -> listening universal truth Sharing gaps between differences ‘C-D-CD’ via full respect in different ways Under who is who (different levels & stakeholders) ‘C-D-CD’ Learn cross-cutting basic concept ‘C-D-CD’ via participatory & self-defining OCT 10&11, 2009 For Stakeholders Understanding different values Step B - Level B Learning gaps between stakeholders Presenting topics & cross cutting debates Over viewing progressive understanding & attitude Grouping interest & concern via group discussion Clarifying inter-action within & between topics Justifying clearly topics by examples – simple practice Observing, listening real holistic & specific behaviour from stakeholders regarding topics OCT 12&13, 2009Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 342nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 35. For Network Action Step C - Level C Commitment Network Action Engaging & concerns Finding common concerns Integrated challenges to challenges from different topics Applying psychological reconciliation by new village prestige, leader of Kho Mu, elder Xay Khu Transect cutting themes for learning between farmers Workshop to exchange & represent SWOT between farmers Bridging Farmer to Farmer for sharing problems & lesson learnt (Kho Mu, Lao, new with experienced villagers & pilot demonstration of Long Lan, Xiang Da and Nam Kha) OCT 14&15, 2009 Level D (0) ?! Traditional resettlement Ownership overlapping Urgent super needs (conflict over land) Urgent intermediate needs (land for farming) Urgent advanced needs (daily food, selling labour) Urgent basic needs (clean water, sanitation, clinics) OCT 21st, 2009Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 352nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 36. Level D (1) Basic community development Basic recognition of identity & values Basic awareness raising and capacity building for all household farmers in land planning and traditional appropriate farming practices Basic stable land area for daily farming practices (include inter-generation) Basic stable survival without selling labour for daily food (sanitation, drinking water, clinics, kindergarten) 5. Sharing contradiction over land for daily life by seeking reconciliation 4. Upgrading/ capacity building for stable/ confident community structure 3. Applying community values/ capitals in hunger alleviation (Kho Mu) 2. Integrated common values regarding natural spirits/ customary law in daily practice 1. Strengthening solidarity/ psychology & ideology of inter-cultural community (Kho Mu, Mong, Lao Lum) OCT 21st, 2009 Level D (2) How basic solidarity of inter-cultural community should be driven Basic awareness of cultural identity in daily life Basic understanding interlinkage between land & livelihoods (including culture, environment and food) Basic recognition of why and how farming land is essential foundation for livelihoods Basic realization why hunger – why selling labour for food? 5. Inviting local authorities, Long Lan elders, Mong association, CHESH Lao and all villagers 4. Supervising and training workshop with local authorities and all villagers to find needs and concern in structuring and restructuring 3. Exchanging by study tour to Nam Kha, Xiang Da, Long Lan for observation and lesson learnt 2. Inviting traditional elders: Mr. Xay Khu Zang (Mong), Xom Lit (Lao Lum), Thong Phay (Kho Mu) 1. Connecting Mong, Kho Mu key-farmers from Long Lan, Nam Kha and entrepreneur – Mr. Xom Lit OCT 21st, 2009Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 362nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 37. Level D (3) Initiate basic CBO-CBI Basic regulations / respect of group setting for practice Basic interest and concern group setting Similar basic needs and difficulties to share between farmers Similar basic interest and concern between farmers 5. Planning - indicators - achievement – monitoring – evaluation 4. Connecting closely with LPB authorities, Mong association and CHESH Lao 3. Setting up Key-elder Regional Council – Key-farmer Executing Group 2. Outsourcing share – learn – experts - trainers and revolving TOT 1. Workshop meeting 1999-2009 KF – Elders – CHESH Lao – local authorities OCT 21st, 2009 Healthy – Happiness – Security – Self-determinationCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 372nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 38. Annex 4: Conclusion by Facilitator for Level AWhat is Community Based Watershed Management? • Interaction between community life and watershed survival • Natural watershed forest offer biodiversity spaces for community ’s customary laws practicing their daily basic needs • Natural watershed forest offer nutrition flows: foods, vegetable, herbal, natural dying, cotton, animals, insects, oxygen, water…for community’s cultivating and livelihoodsWhy is Community Based Watershed Management? • Natural watershed forest offer green and clean environment for community’s air • Natural watershed forest is the life and the survival of community as the holistic. • Commu nit y need s natu ral watershed forest fo r their material and spiritual life • Commu nit y who live with natu ral watershed, they listening and u nd erstanding the watershed forest • The y bu ild the interactio n link via their knowledge, wisdo m and experiences wit h natural watershed forest during living together • The y valu ing the natural watershed as their sup er po wer of b elief • Many ethnic mino rities view the natu ral watershed such their super motherConservation and Development  Interaction between conservation & development! Why?  Tendency to turn back to traditional belief and religion of different identities in conservation & development  Integrated traditional belief and religion/customary law in to legislative making system in conservation & developmentDevelopment in the Mekong region included Luang Prabanghas led to exploitation of natural resources • Road construction and Dam Construction • Cash Crops & extractive industries (Rubber, Cacao, etc) • Urban expansion lead consumerism of young population • Poor group who are direct suffered from “development” without heritage – traditionalismForest Resource Management • Less people participation and less based upon customary law and practices • Less Land Use PlanningPoor groups are under threat • Access to Forest resource is limited to themCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 382nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 39. • Livelihood security is problematic (more dependent) • Migration to Urban areas – (selling labors – slavery? • Cultural identity erodes – (imported ridiculous behavior – manner – cultural – replace traditional value)?! • Local knowledge in forest use be ignored • Ethnicity & diversity be decreases • Forest is “bio – diversity capital” for poor groupsConservation & Development • Forest is “bio – diversity capital” for poor groups • Without forest, poor groups will have less chance to survive in the future • Local knowledge and their belief system should be carefully studied • Their participation in resource management should be supported by authority • Studies why & how poor groups to belief on their own nature – tree spirit, land spirit, water spirit and mountain spirit.How to interaction • Offer participatory in to the Conservation & Development processes • Customary law based resource management? – What Tendency to be?! • State law – based resource management • How community participation given place? • What Community forest law will be declared • Joint watershed management is efficient and dynamic?! • Before expanding need to study very careful the areas and target people • Interaction solutions will be help Mekong as well as Luang Prabang resource management in harmonious ways.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 392nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 40. Annex 5: MoU between RCSD/CEDS, PAFO’S CHESH-LAO & SPERI Development Cooperation between RCSD/CESD, PAFO’s CHESH-Lao and SPERI A trip to Chiang Mai from Luang Prabang October 26th – 29th, 2009Background:Based on a ten-year of development cooperation between PAFO – Luang Prabangand CHESH Laos/SPERI under academic supported of RCSD since 1998concerning “Customary law and natural resource management in Luang Prabang”1999 – 2009;Based on the evaluation of 10 year CHESH Laos/SPERI working in Laos byIndependent Consultant36 from May 11th to June 15 th, 2009; (reference to theIndependent evaluation report by Independent team May 11th to June 5th, 2009 inLuang Prabang);Based on recommendations from the ten-year development cooperation which wasreviewed at a Conference of CHESH Lao/SPERI held in Luang Prabang betweenPAFO – Luang Prabang and CHESH Laos on the issue of “Enriching customarylaw in watershed management in Luang Prabang” in March 28th to April 3rd, 2009;(reference to CHESH Lao – PAFO 1999 – 2009 of “traditional cultural basedcommunity development” report and documentation);Based on the outcomes from Need Assessments Study from October 5th to 25th oftwo new villages of Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat in – where Kho Mu, Mong andLao Lum are living together in Luang Prabang district, Luang Prabang province ofLao PDR; (reference to outlines of Need Assessment Study in two new villages ofDen Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat – Kho Mu – Mong and Lao Lum from October 5thto 25th, 2009 information);A trip to Chiang Mai with aims to submit to Ajran Chayan – Director of RCSD todiscuss about co – responsibility with CHESH Laos/SPERI and PAFO – LuangPrabang in order to gathering initiatives “Enriching customary law in forestmanagement and bio-diversity preservation” in Luang Prabang specific as well asenlivening across Northern Lao – Northern Vietnam and Northern Thailand;(reference to a minute of discussion between Dr Chayan, Ajarn YUA, Ajarn Joniand Mrs. Tran Thi Lanh and Mr. Duong Quang Chau in October 27 th - 29th, 2009at RCSD office)36 Ms Catharine, Mr. Nguyen Cao Cuong and Dr Doan Minh Huan – Independent Consultant involvedCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 402nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 41. Time: from 27th to 29th, October 2009Place: RCSD office, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai – ThailandParticipants: 1. Ajarn Chayan 2. Ajarn Jony 3. Ajarn Yua 4. Ajarn Tran Thi Lanh - SPERI 5. Ms.Amema Saeju- CESD 6. Ms. Piang- Or Sripetch 7. Mr. A La Dua, Mong – CESD staff 8. Duong Quang Chau - SPERIObjectives of a trip1. To have a cooperation agreement of key concerns regarding “Customarylaws and community forestry management” between RCSD/CESD and CHESHLaos/SPERI in coming three year which based on PAFO – Luang Prabang andCHESH Lao MOU’s 2006 – 2009 – 2012;2. To have specific follow up actions regarding coming three year 2009 –2012’s program under “ Enriching customary law and community forestrymanagement” across Northern Laos – Thailand and Vietnam;Expected output after three yearsA guideline manual of Local practical knowledge and natural resourcemanagement based teaching and training methodology;A pilot of co-research between PAFO – RCSD/CESD – CHESH Lao/SPERI in“Customary law and natural resource management” in Long Lan case of LuangPrabang provinceA co – responsible sharing on internship for SPERI students who come toRCSD/CESD for training and writing on Local practical knowledge stories andnatural resources management;A co – publication on the issue “Local knowledge practice and natural resourcemanagement” between PAFO – CHESH Laos/SPERI and RCSD/CESD underRCSD/CESD’s publication’s responsibility.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 412nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 42. Methodology of the discussionRCSD/CESD invite Ajarn YUA THAO – Mong cultural Elders in Maesamaivillage – Chiang Mai district and Ajran Joni ODOCHAO – Karen Elder inMaewing sub – district of Maewang district – Chiang Mai province with theiryounger students such DUA from CESD, MIMI – Lisu female staff and PIENG –female staff of Ajran Joni and Ajarn YUA.CHESH Lao/SPERI presents an outline from a Need Assessment Study of two newvillages in Luang Prabang province – Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat communitiesfrom October 5th to 25th, 2009;Mrs Tran Thi Lanh to present PAFO – Luang Prabang and CHESH Laos/SPERI -1999 – 2009 brief over viewing and coming 10 year cooperation with regards toaddress the need for co – contribution of teaching and curriculum buildingmethodology from Dr Chayan’s think tank such RCSD/CESD of Faculty ofSocial Science – Chiang Mai University;Ajarn Joni – Karen elders and Ajarn YUA – Mong cultural elder play the role asfeedback to the presentation and open discussion on how to deal with furthercooperation on the issue of:“Customary law and natural resource management” in Northern Laos – Thai andVietnam;Outlines by Memorandum of Understanding after two days discussion andagreement as bellow:Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 422nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 43. Memorandum of UnderstandingTHE REGIONAL CENTER FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE AND SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT - (RCSD)AND THE CENTER FOR ETHNIC STUDIES AND DEVELOPMENT -(CESD)Address: Faculty of Social Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200 –THAILANDTel: +66(0)53943595Fax: +66(0)53893279Email: rcsd@chiangmai.ac.thLUANG PRABANG PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREAND FORESTRY OFFICE - (PAFO), LAO P.D.RAddress:Tel:Fax:Email:THE SOCIAL POLICY ECOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE – (SPERI)/ CHESH-Laos program.Address A4, Ngoc Khanh village, Pham Huy Thong Street, Ba Dinh district, Hanoi-Vietnam.Tel.: +84-3-7717367Fax: +84-3-7715691Email: speri@speri.orgSPERI based approach of further 10 year cooperation with Luang Prabang provincevia Luang Prabang Agriculture and Forestry Office (PAFO) and RCSD/CESD –Chiang Mai University:After achievements of a ten-year programme which was reviewed at a conference on“customary laws based special forest management” held in March, 2009 in LuangPrabang, Laos, which facilitated by Dr. Chayan Vaddhanaphuti, with participations ofKey farmer, Elders, youths, scholars, researcher, authorities, media and NGOs in Lao,Vietnam and Thailand. A key achievement indicator of a ten-year programme is “Mongcustomary law in Biodiversity and watershed forest management is legislated” byauthority of Luang Prabang – Laos”. There are over 8.400 ha of the special forest inlimestone under management by Mong – Long Lan customary law. The recommendationsCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 432nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 44. from this conference was calling for enlivening and socializing this pilot demonstration inlarger across Mekong countries.SPERI/CHESH, with her 10 years cooperation & development with Luang Prabang, LaosPDR, and over 10 years of learning and cooperation with RCSD – Chiang Mai, weunderstand that, both of us concerning similar challenges which faced indigenous andminority people in Mekong. Therefore, we come to Chiang Mai to discussion with Dr.Chayan and his staff in order to finding further common solution in order to share andcontribute with indigenous minority in Mekong countries incoming three years.RCSD/CESD based on a common value with SPERI and Luang Prabang authorityconcerning poverty and deforestation towards: 1) Objectives; 2) Target groups; andTraining strategies in Mekong region.Following development cooperation in coming three years will be focused on:RCSD/CESD, PAFO and SPERI are entering into the Agreement for strengtheningresearch and training capacity for staff and students of SPERI/CHESH-Laos.Main contents of agreement as following:I. RCSD/CESD agrees:1. To facilitate a training workshop on “Teaching methodology based on localknowledge practice and indigenous elders – youth”, SPERI staff in Vietnam and Laosand invited participants. Expected outputs will be detailed guidelines manual document;2. To be co-responsible for carrying out a research on customary laws on Naturalresources management in Long Lan village, Luang Prabang province, Laos. This casestudy will be co-published by PAFO, SPERI/CHESH-Laos and RCSD/CESD in Thailand;3. To facilitate six to eight-month non-degree training program for “Young IndigenousEthnic Leadership Strategy = YIELDS” who graduated from the Farmers Field Schoolin Human Ecology Practiced Area - HEPA, Ha Tinh province, Vietnam. Scholarshipsources will be contributed by different stakeholders;4. To facilitate “ An internship program included Mekong exchanging travel for SPERIstaff who come for learning and writing case studies in Vietnam and Laos;II. PAFO agrees:1. To be responsible for legalities under Lao legal framework for this MOU;2. To be responsible to link and mobilize participations of relevant staff, organizations(e.g. government bodies, technical services, research-educational institutions, media, etc)in the process of the cooperation;III. SPERI/CHESH-Laos agree:Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 442nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 45. 1. To be co-responsible for inviting participants and all expenditure cost for a training workshop on Teaching methodology based on local knowledge and forest management which will be organised in Luang Prabang in December, 2009; 2. To be co-responsible for carrying out a research on customary laws on Natural resources management in Long Lan village, Luang Prabang province, Laos. 3. To be co-responsible for providing scholarships and selecting students who will take a non-degree program at RCSD/CESD; 4. To be co-responsible for providing scholarships and selecting staff who will take an internship program at RCSD/CESD; IV. Others: This MOU which includes six pages (three pages of background and three pages of MOU) is made in witness of full agreement between the RCSD/CESD and SPERI according to the above memorandum of agreement. This MOU is made in English and each party keeps two original copies. For PAFO For SPERI For RCSD/CESD Be signed Be signed Be signed Mr. Somphong Pradichit Mrs. Tran Thi Lanh Dr. Chayan Vaddhanaphuti Director of PAFO Founding President of SPERI Director of RCSD/CESDLuang Prabang 30/10/ 2009 Chiang Mai 29/10/ 2009 Chiang Mai 29/10/ 2009 Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 45 2nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW funding contribution
  • 46. Annex 6: Network ActionAfter 23 days working intensively with farmer (fields and workshop), participants foundout 15 participants in the team who are undertaken the following action plan of the NAS.The team of 15 participant spend November 1st full day to review the whole process ofNAS so far, selecting 1) advisory council who are prestige leaders/ elders; 2) coordinatorgroup who are experienced farmer from period 1999- 2009 in Nam Kha, Xiang Da, LongLan and advanced new villages; 3) participatory discussion in order to find the ways forcoming action planParticipatory selected Advisory Council and Coordinator Group November 1st AM, 2009Strategy 1: Participatory selected Advisory CouncilAdvisory council will select youth female and male under council’s standard who areassisting council to connect with Coordinator Group to work direct with the poor. (Mongassociation leader will be invited to involve with council in order to gain experience andlesson learned so far 1999 -2009 on how they have skill of organizing and facilitatingamong citizen to hand in hand to gather in order to enlivening their own customary law insocial – economic – natural resource management?!Action 1: Criteria of Advisory council:Advisory council who is prestige and committed with community, engaging their life inorder to nurturing and supporting community values in voluntary and self-accountability.Community trust him or her whenever they faced challenges and difficult.Action 2: Function of Advisory CouncilAdvisory council advices and provide 1) strategic approaches; 2) maintaining andnurturing community values such customary laws; 3) monitoring & evaluation of anycommunity development cooperation with outside; 4) Finding the right young who arecontinue to nurture community values in the adapting progression; 5) Council task isindependent function from coordinator group.Strategy 2: Participatory selected Coordinator groupAction 1: Criteria of coordinator groupCoordinator group has to be involved in 1) official village leader at new villages; 2)women representative; 3) youths – female and male; 4) advanced farmer who had beenaddressing their dynamic involvement during two weeks working under NeedAssessment Study from October 10th to 31st, 2009; 5) key farmer who are actively 1999 –2009 period; 6) Trained youth (female and male) from Long Lan, Xiang Da, Nam Khaperiod 1999 – 2009 of CHESH Lao/ICCO.Coordinator group will select CHESH Lao’s staff under coordinator’s standard who ishelping coordinators to transfer project activities, mission and vision to practice at twovillages.Coordinator groups who are insighting and sympathetic with the poor, experiencedenough from the period 1999 – 2009 in the area of negative influence by outside world tothe poor, good attitude, and behaviour in observation, communication and inspirationalapproachesCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 462nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 47. Action 2: Function of coordinator group1. Assisting and practicing strategic priorities from Advisory council under participatory and customary law based approaches;2. Take over monthly financial management and arrangement from PAFO – CHESH Lao by their own action planning;3. Updating, connecting, coordinating and informing from the bottom up’s evident, information, situated problems and solutions to both Advisory council and PAFO/CHESH Lao in order to stimulate the “customary law based community development’s quarterly;4. Organize interest group, community meeting for learning, open cross - monitoring in order to catch up action plan’s input – output’s monthly;5. Coordinate a meeting between Luang Prabang Mong association – Advisory Council of Inter –cultural Kho Mu and Mong, Vietnam – Lao’s customary law and natural resource management network under MECO-ECOTRA; and Chiang Mai Mong and Karen’s representatives half yearly;6. Presenting “customary law based community development’s findings and submit to local media, local education, local policy implementation’s representatives and connect to Suphanouvoong’s teachers in forestry and cultural department7. If possible, linkage with Asian people forum and direct connect with General secretary Mr. Surin in Jakarta – Indonesia?!8. Set up schedule in order to invite partner who are donor such ICCO and BfDW to evaluation independently;Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 472nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 48. Action 3: Participatory Action planning November 1 st to December, 2009No. Activities Expected outputs Time Participants Main responsible Notes 1. Study tour to Long Lan, 1. Methodology of setting 1/12 to 7/12/2009 - Den Xa Vang: 10 Somlit (Xiang Da), Xiang Da, Nam Kha up regulations on land, people Hum Phan (DXV), villages forest, water - Phon Xa Vat: 9 Bun Pheng (PXV) management in Long people Lan is learnt - Na Som Phan: 4 2. Methods of fund people raising in Xiang Da - Mong Association: learnt 2 people 3. Methods of building up sanitation village and cultivation of Nam Kha is learnt 2. Training for capacity Elders get more 10/12 to See footnote37 Noi and Phonethip building and TOT experiences for sharing, 16/12/2009 training for youths at the villages. Knowledge of villagers is improved 3 Check legal procedures of Having procedure 2/11 to 30/11/ Phonethip Somvan land allocation for document, maps of three 2009 cultivation, livestock areas: Nha Kha Luang, raising Long Ngau, Den Xa Vang 4 Check land certificates of Having information of land 2/11 to 30/11/ Villagers of two Humphan, Phui37 Long Lan village: Mr. Say Khu Zang, Januly; Phon Xa Vat village: Mr. Bun Pheng, Sang Lau; Den Xa Vang village: Mr. Hum Pheng, Siengsa; Vietnam elders: Ha VanTuyen, Leu Van Trong, Hoang Seo Cau; Mong association: Mr. Ly Pao, Mr. Xay Xua Ly; Luangprabang officers: Mr. Cho Si Zang, Duangchan; Suphanuvong University:Mr. Sihanuvong; PAFO: Mr Som Phong; CHESH Lao: Ms. Noi, Mr. Phonethip, CHESH VN: Mr. Le Van Ka, Nguyen Cong Huan, Pham Van Dung, Giang Seo Su, NguyenThi Hoai Thu, Robert Gray and 5 elders, participants from Thailand.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 2nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 482010 under ICCO – BfDW funding contribution
  • 49. No. Activities Expected outputs Time Participants Main responsible Notes Den Xa Vang, Phon Xa Vat allocation, area, land 2009 villages villages certificates of the two villages 5 Check livestock situation in Having classification of 2/11 to 30/11/ Villagers of two Humphan, Phui Den Xa Vang, Phon Xa Vat livestock 2009 villages 6 Make recommendations to Households without 1/12 to 30/12/ Village head of the district cadastral having been land 2009 two villages department for allocation of allocation will be allocated land to landless 7 Study situation of Na Xam Having information of 25/11 to 30/11/ Mong Association, Mr. Lypao Phan village situation of Na Xam Phan 2009 Mr. Somlit, Xaykhu villagers 8 Solve land conflict in two Land conflict in the two From 12/2009 to Province, district Advisory Council, areas of Long Ngau and areas are solved with 6/2010 and villages. Coordination board Nha Kha Luong certified agreement 9 Solving water shortage in Available fresh water for 1/2010 to 5/2010 Villagers of two Mr. Humphan, Phui the two villages Den Xa Vang, Phon Xa villages Vat villages 10 Set up regulations of Having regulation in Den 1/2010 to 5/2010 Villagers of two Mr. Humphan, Phui livestock raising Xa Vang, Phon Xa Vat villages villages 11 Set up regulations of land, Regulations of Phon Xa 7/2010 to 12/2010 Villagers of two Mr. Humphan, Phui forest, water management Vat, Den Xa Vang villages villages area set up and certified by district authoritiesCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 2nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 492010 under ICCO – BfDW funding contribution
  • 50. Annex 7: Questions of justice for the poor and Kho Mu’s challengesNo. Timing Questions1 Until 02- 1. How Kho Mu communities in LPB38 were practicing their values 12 - 1975 towards their own landscape? What kind of landscape they look for their own existence? How their landscape look likes? Midland? Mountain highlands? Flatland? Primary natural? Watershed? Special forest? Slop land? 2. What values (Belief, Religion, Norm) Kho Mu worship for? What kind of landscape (trees, stone, tend, herbal forest, stream or animal that Kho Mu select to worship for their own belief? 3. How Kho Mu was organizing their own society in order to worshiping their own natural? 4. What is their own customary law towards their own worship? 5. How they performance their own belief in daily – seasonally – yearly or in any occasionally? 6. Mind mapping to addressing Kho Mu steps of belief – religion under their own organized way in general diagram 7. What daily norm that Kho Mu stimulates their own generations from one to another in order to practice their values system? 8. What and how the role of Lao State towards Kho Mu at this moment? 9. How Kho Mu indicated their own wealthy – happiness and Healthy? And how Lao state indicated the nation values and happiness? 10. Is there any official constitution – laws – degrees concerning to Land, forest, water and other resources and how these policies were look likes? Were natural resources defined by any legitimacy situation at that moment in Lao? Is there any official paper written down on natural resources situation. Ownership at that moment?2 1975 - 1. How Kho Mu communities in LPB were practicing their values 1985 towards their own landscape? What kind of landscape they look for their own existence? How their landscape look likes? Midlands? Mountain highlands? Flatland? Primary natural? Watershed? Special forest? Slopland? 2. What values (Belief, Religions, Norm) Kho Mu worship for? What kind of landscape (trees, stone, tend, herbal forest, stream or animal that Kho Mu select to worship for their own belief? 3. How Kho Mu was organizing their own society in order to worshiping their own natural? 4. What is their own customary law towards their own worship? 5. How they performance their own belief in daily – seasonally – yearly or in any occasionally? 6. Is there any policy which be practiced in any Kho Mu community in Laos at this moment? Resettlement? Combination with Lao Lum38 LPB = Luang PrabangCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 502nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 51. No. Timing Questions or Mong? 7. If yes, how these policies be applied and implemented? Is there any indicator to reflect or measure that was bottom up learning and consulting attitude from district – provincial or central decision making processes? 8. How these policies were treated/behave with Kho Mu then? Give an example in box very detail?3 1985 - 1. How Kho Mu communities in LPB were practicing their values 1995 towards their own landscape? What kind of landscape they look for their own existence? How their landscape look likes? Midlands? Mountain highlands? Flatland? Primary natural? Watershed? Special forest? Slopland? 2. What values (Belief, Religions, Norm) Kho Mu worship for? What kind of landscape (trees, stone, tend, herbal forest, stream or animal that Kho Mu select to worship for their own belief? 3. How Kho Mu was organizing their own society in order to worshiping their own natural? 4. What is their own customary law towards their own worship? 5. How they performance their own belief in daily – seasonally – yearly or in any occasionally? 6. Is there any policy which be practiced in any Kho Mu community in Laos at this moment? Resettlement? Combination with Lao Lum or Mong? 7. If yes, how these policies be applied and implemented? Is there any indicator to reflect or measure that was bottom up learning and consulting attitude from district – provincial or central decision making processes? 8. How these policies were treated/behave with Kho Mu then? Give an example in box? 9. Is there any psychology conflict from mixed Mong with Kho Mu living together? 10. If yes, please record telling stories from elders in Kho Mu or Mong language?4 1995 - 1. How Kho Mu communities in LPB were practicing their values 1999 towards their own landscape? What kind of landscape they look for their own existence? How their landscape look likes? Midland? Mountain highlands? Flatland? Primary natural? Watershed? Special forest? Slopland? 2. What values (Belief, Religion, Norm) Kho Mu worship for? What kind of landscape (trees, stone, tend, herbal forest, stream or animal that Kho Mu select to worship for their own belief? 3. How Kho Mu was organizing their own society in order to worshiping their own natural? 4. What is their own customary law towards their own worship? 5. How they performance their own belief in daily – seasonally – yearly or in 6. Is there any policy which be practiced in any Kho Mu community in Laos at this moment? Resettlement? Combination with Lao LumCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 512nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 52. No. Timing Questions or Mong? 7. If yes, how these policies be applied and implemented? Is there any indicator to reflect or measure that was bottom up learning and consulting attitude from district – provincial or central decision making processes? 11. Is there any psychology conflict from mixed Mong with Kho Mu living together? 12. If yes, please record telling stories from elders in Kho Mu or Mong language? 13. How these policies were treated/behave with Kho Mu then? Give an example in box5 1999 - 1. How Kho Mu communities in LPB were practicing their values 2004 towards their own landscape? What kind of landscape they look for their own existence? How their landscape look likes? Midlands? Mountain highlands? Flatland? Primary natural? Watershed? Special forest? Slopland? 2. What values (Belief, Religion, Norm) Kho Mu worship for? What kind of landscape (trees, stone, tend, herbal forest, stream or animal that Kho Mu select to worship for their own belief? 3. How Kho Mu was organizing their own society in order to worshiping their own natural? 4. What is their own customary law towards their own worship? 5. How they performance their own belief in daily – seasonally – yearly? 6. Is there any policy which be practiced in any Kho Mu community in Laos at this moment? Resettlement? Combination with Lao Lum or Mong? 7. If yes, how these policies be applied and implemented? Is there any indicator to reflect or measure that was bottom up learning and consulting attitude from district – provincial or central decision making processes? 8. Is there any psychology conflict from mixed Mong with Kho Mu living together? 9. If yes, please record telling stories from elders in Kho Mu or Mong language? 10. How these policies were treated/behave with Kho Mu then? Give an example in box6 2004 - 1. How Kho Mu communities in LPB were practicing their values 2006 towards their own landscape? What kind of landscape they look for their own existence? How their landscape look likes? Midlands? Mountain highlands? Flatland? Primary natural? Watershed? Special forest? Slopland? 2. What values (Belief, Religions, Norm) Kho Mu worship for? What kind of landscape (trees, stone, tend, herbal forest, stream or animal that Kho Mu select to worship for their own belief? 3. How Kho Mu was organizing their own society in order to worshiping their own natural? 4. What is their own customary law towards their own worship? 5. How they performance their own belief in daily – seasonally –Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 522nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 53. No. Timing Questions yearly? 6. Is there any policy which be practiced in any Kho Mu community in Laos at this moment? Resettlement? Combination with Lao Lum or Mong? 7. If yes, how these policies be applied and implemented? Is there any indicator to reflect or measure that was bottom up learning and consulting attitude from district – provincial or central decision making processes? 8. Is there any psychology conflict from mixed Mong with Kho Mu living together? 9. If yes, please record telling stories from elders in Kho Mu or Mong language? 10. How these policies were treated/behave with Kho Mu then? Give an example in box7 2006 - 1. How Kho Mu communities in LPB were practicing their values 2009 towards their own landscape? What kind of landscape they look for their own existence? How their landscape look likes? Midlands? Mountain highlands? Flatland? Primary natural? Watershed? Special forest? Slopland? 2. What values (Belief, Religion, Norm) Kho Mu worship for? What kind of landscape (trees, stone, tend, herbal forest, stream or animal that Kho Mu select to worship for their own belief? 3. How Kho Mu was organizing their own society in order to worshiping their own natural? 4. What is their own customary law towards their own worship? 5. How they performance their own belief in daily – seasonally – yearly? 6. Is there any policy which be practiced in any Kho Mu community in Laos at this moment? Resettlement? Combination with Lao Lum or Mong? 7. If yes, how these policies be applied and implemented? Is there any indicator to reflect or measure that was bottom up learning and consulting attitude from district – provincial or central decision making processes? 8. Is there any psychology conflict from mixed Mong with Kho Mu living together? 9. If yes, please record telling stories from elders in Kho Mu or Mong language? 10. How these policies were treated/behave with Kho Mu then? Give an example in box8 1999 – 1. How the process of Kho Mu assert their own land and forest assets Land – self-inform their own land for land allocation to authorities in allocation 1999? supported 2. What methodology based EU program in Land and forest by EU allocation in Luang Prabang? 3. Khơ Mú self – inform and measure their Land and forest areas by what criteria? 4. When Kho Mu selling their land, what based criteria, they measureCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 532nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 54. No. Timing Questions their land? Who measure the land areas for them? Who witness and what legal based to selling land? How much land areas will be legal permission for sell? 5. Legitimacy situation of the mapping? 6. What happen with self – statement overlapped between households after selling land to outsiders? 7. What happen when overlapped between traditional ownership and resettlement land given by resettlement program from the state without full responsibility? What happen to overlapped mapping and top down bureaucratic bordering 8. What happening if territory border in theory and practice are overlapping? 9. What happening if overlap then how taxes going on? 10. What and how happening if farmer are not self – statement their land areas? Because they do not enough capacity to pay land taxes? 11. Farmers who do not self-inform could not get land title? 12. Because farmer could not able to pay land taxes lead does not stating their own land area? 13. Farmer does not have land title, it means that farmer could not selling land? 14. To want to selling land, it must to be self – statement land areas? 15. Production land with tech plantation will have the right to selling? How the processes going on? 16. Tech plantation, selling tech, it means selling Land? How this process going on? 17. How EU’s approaches to the assert Kho Mu’s land assets in Kho Mu case? 18. How EU and Lao state valuing Kho Mu assert their own land for legitimacy process? 19. How local authorities of LPB to monitoring assert to land title of Kho Mu? 20. How Kho Mu valuing Land for making their own assert to their own Land assets title? 21. How different value and aware faced Kho Mu due to their voluntary assert of Land? 22. What consequences hidden from this assert to Land title since 1999? 23. How local Land department of state monitoring and reviewing? 24. What – why and how motivation leads Kho Mu selling Land? 25. From what kind of Land title Kho Mu selling to outside? 26. Is there any situation of land transferred? If yes? How the process look likes? 27. Who is buyer? Give detail mind mapping of selling and buying process? 28. How buying and selling situation with Kho Mu land title now? 29. Under what, whose criteria and how to measure land for selling and buying?Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 542nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 55. No. Timing Questions9 What is 1. How Kho Mu daily surrvival today after selling and buying key without controlled? challenges 2. Since market lead land, how Kho Mu and Mong are living together in one located? 3. Since market lead land, how Kho Mu in relation with Mong who are resettled out? 4. Since market lead land, how Kho Mu in relation with free middlemen? 5. Since market lead land, what and how conflict happened daily in Kho Mu? 6. Is there any intervention from local governing?Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 552nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 56. Annex 8: Detailed reports on culture, social and economics in Den XaVang and Phon Xa Vat Cultural structure of Kho Mu people at Den Xa Vang and Phon Xa Vat villages, Luang Prabang district, Luang Prabang province, Lao PDR Two elders accidentally link two Elder, who is wise, ends of 10 bamboo understands pieces, observe and decide 3 customs and voted Council of by villagers reputable persons Person, who can discuss to decide Provision of find kind of spirits clan affairs village Provision that cause illness settlement of Con Provision of Cham Put 1 peeled rice and clan Provision of two rice in to a hole, Croimon observe next morning Collect land Croimon identifies 4 Provision of spirits, Con Cham to decide for a house Phu Pha No belief illness 2 worships Pa Lieng Pi ho belief treatment Provision of Croigang belief Guests do not enter spaces in Community spirit Calendar and owner’s room; not lie Orderly norm taboo One taboo day for house 1 down under altar every 10 days Provision of Provision of Select tomb at funeral ceremonies broken tree branch in Provision of sacred forest. A Provision of Villagers contribute marriage ceremony at the tomb giving birth offerings, decide on after 10 days of burial time. Con Cham One husband and decide offering wife. Free choice of Husband take herbs, amount and spouse. Parents children’s cord is kept worship decide date of 3 days in bamboo wedding. 3 year stay tube, then hung on at wife’s (in the past) forest treesNote1 . Cycle of 10-day calendar of Kho Mu people includes: Mu Hoai, Mu Mung, Mu Put, Mu Cat, Mu Cot, MuHuong, Mu Tau, Mu Ca, Mu Cap, Mu Hap. Taboo day is the next day of the village founding day, so PhonXa Vat take Mu Hoai and Den Xa Vang take Mu Huong as their taboo day. Villagers do not go to forest, cuttree, do field that day.2 . Different location of worshipping and various offerings depending on different kinds of spirits. Amongspirits, Hoi gang (home spirit), Hoi ma (spirits of souls) are the most appearing.3 . If two ends of bamboo pieces are linked as completed cycle, that is good sign, village location is decided,otherwise, people should choose other location in case of separated bamboo pieces.4 . If rice maintain their location or only one rice is separated, it is good sign. If only a peeled rice movedaway, people do not choose the location due to bad sign.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 562nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 57. Belief of Kho Mu peopleThere is one sacred mountain named PhuPha No in Den Xa Vang village. This is arocky mountain, which contains watersource at the bottom. The water source isnot stable, water merely exists fourmonths per year (during September toDecember).Den Xa Vang villagers tell a legend ofsacred Phu Pha No as the followings:Long time ago, Heaven spirits and thehuman got disagreement at once. Onenight lots of heavy rain, strong wind,lightening appeared. Villagers saw golden bamboo shoots appearing on the mountain.Then human know how to be afraid of and care for the Heaven spirits. They think that thisrocky mountain is a sacred area, and name it Phu Pha No, that means mountain of goldenbamboo shoots. Whenever villagers hear sound deriving from top water source, there willbe surely a death in the village. Some people did not believe, they tried to clear forest forfield at the sacred area, but they died soon after action. That consolidate villagers’ beliefin the legend.Water source at the sacred forest looks fresh. Villagers used to take this source fordrinking. In 1950s villagers saw a lot of white monkeys running at the top water source.Then a lot of villagers died of fever, so villagers removed from this village to live in otherareas for some years. Since this event, villagers no longer use this water source fordrinking.Whenever villagers feel something wrong,that offend sacred forest spirits, they needto prepare offerings and worship at thesacred forest. Currently there is noworshipper (Croimon - spiritual leader,who recognize which spirits causingillness) in Den Xa Vang village, thereforevillagers have to invite worshipper fromother villages, such as Bo He or Phon XaVat.Kho Mu people in Den Xa Vang adoptedthe following main belief: - Buddhism. - Pi Pa (forest spirits): community join Lieng Pi Ho ceremony in July and December. - Worship mountain spirits whenever someone suffer from illness, because they believe that people do not care for spirits well, so they are punished. - Seven households in Den Xa Vang follow Protestant.Mong people, who merged into Den Xa Vang village also join community ceremony ofKho Mu people.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 572nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 58. There is a sacred area at Phu Pha Khao (mountain of White Heaven) in Phon Xa Vatvillage. The worshipping area is called Lieng Pi Lao, means care for, feed spirits. There isa big sacred tree (May Xieng tree) and a top water source, which has water seasonally andmany rocks at the sacred area. Villagers chose this area, they considered this as sacred, sono one dare to cut tree at this area. Villagers have discovered some skeletons at a caveabove the sacred tree, so villagers are afraid to go to that cave area.Phon Xa Vat villagers worship village spirits on July 10th every year. Offerings consist ofone pig of three spans or two chicken, 4 bottles of wine. All villagers contribute to buypigs, wine. If they have to use chicken instead of pig, Con Cham will worship forestspirits to forgive villagers because villagers have not good yield this year, so they do nothave pig to offer to spirits.Family of illness invites Con Cham to worship forest spirits at Phu Pha Khao. Only ConCham can worship at this area, because people think that spirits can simply recognize ConCham and accept offerings while others cannot contact and be recognized by spirits.Tourist can visit Phu Pha Khao, they have to followcommunity regulations. They are not allowed to cuttrees or do such wrong things as defecating or havingsex there.Area for Lieng Pi Ho ceremony is separated from PhuPha No (where worshipping spirits for illness treatmentis carried out) in Den Xa Vang village.Sacred forest in Phon Xa Vat serves both Lieng Pi Hoceremony and worshipping spirits for illness treatment.The praying words are various depending on purposeof each worship though only Con Cham is a uniqueperson to worship. In Lieng Pi Ho ceremony, ConCham prays for community goodness, no diseases,good crops. In worshipping for illness treatment, ConCham offer spirits with offerings, to chase out bad things and pray for successfultreatment.Cemetery is a sacred space, so everyone should not cut tree nor do bad things there.Whenever Mong people invite Kho Mu people to join their Tong Senh ceremony, KhoMu people will come and vice versa.Kho Mu in a certain can involve in Lieng Pi Ho of other Kho Mu villages. Lieng Pi Housed to be held for three consecutive days in Phon Xa Vat village. Recently it is held fortwo days. People from other villages may involve in worshipping in the forest, share food,dance and stay overnight in the village and come back home the next morning.Taboo - Death outsiders, including son-in-law of the villager are not allowed to be burried in the village. - Outsiders should not go under fireplace frame, because it is belief that spirits exist on that place. This taboo is not so strict today.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 582nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 59. - In the past each house used to have two stairways, so one should go up and down on the same stairway. - Outsiders are not allowed to lie under home altar. - Outsiders should not enter Mu Mu householder’s bedroom. Hap Hoai Mu Mu - During three-day ceremony of Cap Mung new house entering, everyone should not enter the house except Mu Ca Mu worshipper and his assistants. Put - Lie along the house under top roof is prohibited, because only Mu Mu death body is placed that Tau Cat direction. One should lie with the Mu Mu Huong head inside. Cot - Den Xa Vang villagers maintain a taboo day of Mu Huong. This is the next day after the first day of village resettlement. According to Kho Mu traditional calendar, a cycle of calendar takes 10 days, so each month should contain 3 days of Mu Huong (see the above diagram). Similarly, Phon Xa Vat villagers keep taboo day of Mu Hoai. Villagers should not go and work in forest, nor work on field, nor thresh rice in the village in taboo day.Good days are Mu Hap, Mu Cot, people prefer to hold wedding, set up (finish) house,resettle village or carry out other great events.Bad days are Mu Ca, Mu Cat.Selection of landKho Mu people worship their ancestors(Hing) at the house altar and kitchenframe. They choose land for setting uphouse by digging a small hole at theintended place, then putting two rice seedsand one peeled rice seed in the hole,covering with some leaves. They willcheck the seeds the next morning. If thepeeled rice seed is moved away, that is notgood sign, people do not choose that landarea. If three seeds keep the same positionor only one rice seed is moved, it is goodsign, so that plot of land is selected.Depend on economic situation, people can whether offer pig or not in land breakingceremony for building a house. However they should hold a ceremony for entering a newCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 592nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 60. house. House owner should kill pig or cow to offer spirits and invite villagers to joinattaching bracelets for solidarity and praying for happiness.Select land for village settlement: Two elders attach 10 bamboo pieces. If two ends ofbamboo pieces are linked as completed cycle, that is good sign, village location isselected, otherwise, people should choose other location in case of separated bamboopieces (see above illustrated picture).Villagers choose suitable day for holding Lieng Pi Ho ceremony, Con Cham decide ontypes and amount of offerings (e.g. rice, wine). There is an assistant to help Con Cham toinform Con Cham’s decision to villagers and prepare things for Con Cham’s worshippingin the forest.Community structureWhile village head is essentially in charge of administrative management, Con Cham andCroimon are traditional spiritual leaders of Kho Mu people. They become spiritualfoundation for villagers, they act on behalf to all villagers to contact, pray before gods,spirits for good luck and give up bad things.Con Cham:Con Cham of Den Xa Vang village is recentlyMr. Siangsa and his two assistants, elderTheng Savang and elder Siangkham. ConCham of Phon Xa Vat village is elder ThaoNhuôn, 84 years old and his assistant, elderSiengkham, 83 years old.Elder Thao Nhuon has been keeping his ConCham position for 13 years. Elder Siangsucused to be Con Cham of Phon Xa Vat village.During his term, villagers are annoyed byspirits and diseases. Since elder Thao Nhuon’skeeping Con Cham position, villagers feel more stable. Villagers pay great respect to elder Thao Nhuon. They believe that, Con Cham is very powerful spiritually, he can chase out bad spirits to gain village good luck and provide illness treatment. Two years ago a villager, who did not believe in spirits went to forest to dare spirits that, no spirits can touch him. Unluckily and incidently, a part of his intestine was stuck out that night. Hospital doctors could not diagnose well or give treatment, so they suggest that man to come back village for traditional treatment. Croimon then recognized that, the man offended forest spirits and was sanctioned. Then Con Cham Thao Nhuon went to the forest to worship, and that man was cured. Con Cham Thao Nhuon does not know a lot of herbs, he is good at selecting right place and applying rightCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 602nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 61. worshipping way according to diagnosis and suggestion from Croimon Thoongsi.Recently there are no Kho Mu herbalist in the two target villages though there used to besome. Herbalist should practice herbs well and set up a herbal altar for regularworshipping to herbal spirits.Once a district officer came to told villagers that, they should give up worshipping, that isconsidered to be superstitious. Villagers replied: we need to maintain our traditional wayof illness treatment, we can cure some illness, that is unable to be done by hospitals. Thatis our customs, we should not give up.Con Cham is voted by all villagers. Con Cham should be a respectful wise elder whounderstand Kho Mu customs, worshipping words and contacting to forest, mountain,stream spirits. If Con Cham cannot keep his reputation, or feels tired, cannot assure histask, villagers will vote another one. Con Cham shows younger generation sacred areasand educates them to follow customs, tells them consequences if they do not follow.Kho Mu people believe that, if spirits are let hunger, they will cause diseases to peopele.Therefore, people should feed spirits that also means they should keep forest and nurturetheir nature. Spirits do not require much, they simply need (eat) symbol of pig, sovillagers do not necessarily offer big pig, then offering of small pig is possible. They donot require lots of money, so some silver coin is enough, after ceremony they can keepand reuse for the next.After diagnosis of Croimon, Con Cham will base on the result to worship accordingly.Each type of spirits should be worshipped at a certain specific place. For instance, forestspirits should be worshipped at high place with offerings of a red cloth and coveredleaves. Cemestry spirits need rice, wine, candle, a cigar, betel-nut. Home spirits need samthuc, sam man, sam cam, sam tong, that means three boat-shaped silver coins, threebamboo tubes with wine, three jars of trunk wine, three round silver coins and a pig ofthree spans. Hoiom (water spirits) should be worshipped at low place, with offerings ofred cloth, white chicken, because water spirits are believed to like white chicken. Peopleshould offer five khan-ha (funnal-shapped banana leave box), joss-stick made from oldcloth. Con Cham use chicken’s blood to paint at the worshipping place.Elder Thao Nhuon said, he has learnt and justfollows his parents and ancestors to apply suchworshipping offerings as betel-nut, candle or joss-sticks while he does not know the meaning behindof those offerings. He experienced some cases ofuncessful worshipping and treatment, then hechecked the offerings and discovered someshortage, so he had to prepare enough andworshipped again to success.Elder Thao Nhuon feels not much difficult tocomplete his status of Con Cham. He feelsresponsible whenever a villager gets sick. Assistantobserve closely Con Cham’s worshipping to learnand continue in the future while most of villagers donot concentrate well to learn.Con Cham Siengsa is in charge of taking care forLieng Pi Ho ceremony of Den Xa Vang village. There is one altar set up nearby a big treein the sacred forest. The big tree inclined and was about to collapse to the altar.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 612nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 62. Recognizing threat, elder Siangsa pray to spirits for the tree not collapsing and destroyingthe altar. Then, that tree collapsed other side and did not destroy the altar in a heavystorm. A strange thing is that, cattle rarely go to sacred area, and never eat there thoughthere are lots of good grasses.Croimon:Den Xa Vang village has no worshipper (Croimon), so whenever villagers need torecognize causes of illness they have to invite Croimon from other villages. There is oneCroimon in Phon Xa Vat village, elder Thoongsi Chant’re.According to elder Thoongsi, Croimon recognize the following types of spirits: 1. Hoi om is water or dragon spirits 2. Hoi pai is spirits of pregnant or poor death persons 3. Hoi pi luong is spirits of people die at pagoda 4. Hoi ta mong is spirits at bottom of rocky mountain 5. Hoi xa ong is spirits of big trees 6. Hoi ro man is spirits at cemetery 7. Hoi gang is home spirits. Each couple should worship to introduce bride-new family member to home spirits. 8. Hoi ma is spirits of people’s soul 9. Hoi chin t’rai is spirits of heaven 10. Hoi r’him is spirits of death from such sudden accidents as shooting, falling from trees or hunger, so spirits require people to offer food.According to Croimon Thoongsi, Hoi gang, Hoi ma are the most popular. People believethat, they get illness not because of doing bad things, but because of their hungryancestors’ spirits, so their children get illness. Croimon have two ways to diagnose: 1. Use an egg and a bow of water to see. 2. Use pong (candle made from deserted bee wax without any bees living there). The wax should be attached to a tree in the forest. Kho Mu people think that, bees go everywhere, so they see everything. If bee wax original location is unclear, Croimon will not see clearly and cannot get good diagnosis. Croimon sets fire on pong to light on the ill person and says: bees go several places, see a lot of good lucks, see spirits clearly. Croimon uses pong, together with two boxes made from banana leaves, which contain good smell flowers andsaong saysuoi containing tree branches; betel-nut and lime. Bad smell flowers should notbe used.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 622nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 63. Clan:The two target villages have the followingmain clans: Tamong, Simom (name of a bird),T’ravai (tiger), Tava, X’loc (Tanglo bird),Chant’re, Tahap (fish trap). Tamong is thelargest clan in Phon Xa Vat village (33households). There is a council of 10reputable persons to discuss and decide onimportant affair of the clan.Each clan have their own legend to explaintheir origine, belief, totem and customs. Forinstance, T’ravai do not touch, catch or eattiger meat. They believe that, if they ate tiger, their teeth would drop out, if they touchedtiger, their skill would be wounded. Tava clando not touch or cut Tava trees.When children go to the field, they want tounderstand why they are not allow to cuttotem trees or touch a certain animal theadults need to explain by telling their clanlegend. Recently radio in Kho Mu languageoften tell Kho Mu stories, including eachclan’s legends. Therefore, almost every KhoMu people know their totem.Ceremonies, festivalsLieng Pi HoLieng Pi Ho is held in July, after finishing seeding. Offerings include traditional silvercoins of Kho Mu people, Kho-tum (two pairs of sweet cakes), banana, sticky ricecontributed by each households of the village. There are 4 colorful chicken (not use whitechicken for this ceremony), 4 jars of wine, candle, joss-sticks and some seeds. Allvillagers contribute offerings. Each households offer Suoi (number of boxes equals tonumber of family member, that box is covered by banana leaves, that contain flowers). Itis believed that, this is the way forest spirits recognize and manage all villagers. ConCham on behalf of villagers prays to forest spirits for protection of healthy villagers,livestocks avoid diseases, good crops without worms. They choose flat area for favourableworshipping place. After worshipping, Con Cham keep silver coin and reuse for the nextceremony. Each Kho Mu households should keep some old coins, so whoever is voted asCon Cham, he will use his own silver coin for community ceremony.Worshipping is often held at noon of the day of village resettlement and take taboo for thenext day. For instance, Phon Xa Vat take taboo day of Mu Hoai, Den Xa Vang village useMu Huong as taboo day. For this July ceremony, villagers make taboo sign of closingCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 632nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 64. village gate right after worshipping, outsiders are not allowed to enter the village for thenext day after worshipping.Deliberated violators will be fined to pay enough offerings for villagers to reorganize theceremony. If outside violators do not understand community customs, Con Cham has totake two Suoi of flowers to pray forest spirits for forgiveness, and not put punishment toviolators and villagers. Con Cham should say clearly that, outsiders do not share the sameethnic group, language, they do not know, so we pray to spirits for not being punished.Today villagers of the two target villages do not follow strictly taboo of traditionalcalendar cycle. They use also lunar calendar according to pagoda calendar system. Thischanges were caused by a campain during 1980-1984, in which district officers stayedmonths at the villages to remove Kho Mu people’s altars, and propogate that, theircustoms of funeral, wedding were superstitious and should be given up. It is funny that,also district officers came back to Kho Mu villages to tell people to maintain their culturalidentity ten years later. However that was quite late, villagers had transferred theirancestor’s soul into pagoda and follow a lot of Buddist regulations.Put PiCeremony is held in December or January depending on harvest time. Villagers contributenew rice to thank gods, spirits for a good crop. Outsiders are not allowed to entervillagers’ house at the night after the worshipping. Therefore outsiders should stay at theforest, worshipping place. Recently this ceremony is not organized at community level.However, it is maintained by each households.Kin Khau MayThis is ceremony of households after harvesting rice. Villagers take a bunch of rice toworship at their house first, then they harvest all their rice.Regulations relating to familyAltarDen Xa Vang as well as Phon Xa Vatvillagers cannot keep taboo strictly formaintenance of their altar, so they had togive up regular alter. Villagersexperienced many cases that, son-in-lawor outsiders did not follow taboo well,then all family members got sick. Thensome households only use a tray of foodas offerings when they make a worship attheir house. There are only two altarsexisting in Phon Xa Vat village, onebelongs to Croimon Thoongsi and another belongs to Mr. Somsi (head of tourist group).Another reason for few altar is that, only some households representing for the clan, whoget enough criteria according to their customs can set up their own altar. Others need towait to until they are allowed to set up altar according to Kho Mu customary laws.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 642nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 65. Although traditional customs, taboo, or house altars are not maintained originally, LiengPi Ho worshiping area and sacred forest are still kept well by the whole community of thetwo villages. One of the reasons is that, those community taboo, sacred areas do notrequire lots of strict daily taboo and practices.FuneralDeath body is placed along the top roof of the house. A temporary window should bemade for carrying the death out of the house, because people do not carry the deaththrough the main door.Previously Kho Mu people use mats as the coffin. Then they use one big tree to makecoffin. They go to cemetery forest to choose a place of broken tree branch for the tomb. Aceremony with offerings of chicken, egg, wine, water is held at the tomb. The death isplaced headed to the east and feet to the west. Croimon is not allowed to involve infuneral.Family members of the death do not plough or turn up soil within 9 days after burial toavoid annoying the death. After 9 days from burial, people hold one ceremony at thetomb, then ceremony of solidarity at the death’s house. After that people do not hold anymore ceremony. Whenever a family member is sick, Croimon recognize that ancestors’spirits are hungry, the family should offer a worshipping for their past ancestors.The eldest son is main person to manage the funeral. The eldest son-in-law should takethis position if the past person has no son.Marriage, weddingYouths select spouse freely, then informtheir parents for agreement. Parents inviterelatives to discuss to check whether thecouple share the same clan, lineage. If theyare not in close lineage relation, marriage isaccepted, two families choose good day forwedding.Offerings is taken from the groom’s to thebride’s, which consists of chicken, five litersof wine, one pig of four spans, cloth,100,000 kips, five silver coins forworshipping at the bride’s. The groom’sfamily may ask for loan and pay later if they do not get enough offerings.When bride go to the groom’s a ceremony should be held to inform new member for thegroom’s ancestor spirits. Offerings consist of chicken or pig, rice for worshipping andfood for everyone to share and cheer to the new couple.Parents ask whether son-in-law want to stay in their house. According to traditionalcustoms, son-in-law should live and work for his wife’s for three years. This regulation isnot so strict followed nowadays, son-in-law can come back home with his wife after thewedding. If the wife’s family is in need, son-in-law should stay and work for them for acertain duration of time.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 652nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 66. After going to the husband’s, wife is considered to follow husband. Nowadays manywomen want their husband to reduce wine drinking. Husbands often like wives to delivermany children though most women do not want (Phon Xa Vat women meeting onOctober 19th 2009). Family planning was first introduced by the government seven yearsago. District women officers came to villages to give training on family planning.Government sell pregnant prevention pills at lower price than free market. However,family planning methods are not so effective because several cases of unexpected birthhave been reported.A couple like to divorce may bring their case to village, then village representatives willreconciliate them for three times. If they cannot succeed, village elder will ask whetherthe couple confirm to divorce, if they say yes, village will agree. In normal case, no one isfaulty, assets will be divided equally.If one suggest divorce without sound reasons, that person will not have right to receiveasset share. Wife has rights to feed baby, or rights to decide for little children if childrenare unable to decide for themselves.If a husband is wrong (such as adultery, addict wine or opium, etc.), the wife has rights toreport to village elder. The husband is fined two times of wedding offerings. In case ofdivorce in this situation, the wife will take house and all assets. The wife has rights to feedchildren and the husband has to support to feed children until their adulthood. Thisregulation is similarly applied to wrong wife.If two sides are both recognized as wrong to cause divorce, both husband and wife areresponsible for feeding their children until adulthood. Children are asked and can followfather or mother according to their wish.Giving birthWhen the wife delivers a child, the husband collects herbs from forest for the wife to bathand drink, so that both mother and child will be healthy. If husband do not know herb, hecan ask his father or herbalists to help. The cord of the child is put into a bamboo tube,keep at home for three days before being hung on a forest tree. People should keep thattree. One ceremony for attaching bracelets and solidarity should be held a month after thebirth. Everyone pray for healthy, fast grown-up child.Cultural interactionIf Lao Lum from other villages invite KhoMu people to join their festivals, Kho Mupeople will take some offerings,contributions to participate. Offerings mayconsist of chicken, pork, potato, sweetsoup, sticky rice.Previously Kho Mu people rarely getmarried with other ethnic groups.Recently more and more Mong, Lao Lumpeople get married with Kho Mu people.If a family with Kho Mu husband lives inKho Mu village, children should speakCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 662nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 67. Kho Mu.Wedding of different ethnic group should follow the bride’s customs.Some Phon Xa Vat elders (elder Siangkham, Sichan, Somsi) feel unhappy and sorry forsome Kho Mu people, who move to towns, then their children are unable to rememberorigine, Kho Mu language and difficult to contact with Kho Mu people. According toelder’s suggesting solution, they should educate their children that, Kho Mu people shouldconfidently keep their own language, identity because that is their origin, their rights.Tourism in Phon Xa Vat villageTourist route to Phon Xa Vat village a point oftour to Takse waterfall started operation fouryears ago. Tourists like to visit there becauseof available forest, nice big caves.Tourist Company builds a tourist central inSianglan town seven years aggo. They invitedtwo men and two women from Phon Xa Vatvillage to get training on tourist service. Aman (Mr. Somsi) attended a training coursefor manager, and he becomes main touristguide and head of village tourist servicegroup.Some tourists, especially Frech like to learn villagers culture. Most of them like to walk,visit forest for one hour and spend some time to stay and visit the village.Community had contributed to build acommon guesthouse, and Tourist Companycontributed scalves, blankets, pillows andthey collect benefits from introducingtourists to the village. Villagers can getovernight fee of 10,000 kips per person.Recently the common guesthouse is broken,so tourists are introduced to stay at elderSiangkham’s house. Elder Siangkham (amember of the group) contribute 20% ofguesthouse income to community tourismmanagement group common fund.There are 4 meal serving groups in the village, they serve tourist in turn at 30,000 permeal. All income is converted into the group’s fund. Tourist guide inform menue to thegroup, and serving group buy foodstuff, cook accordingly. So far, members of mealserving group have not yet received any income from their work because the group fundwas not repaid by borrowers.Former village head (Lao Lum people) is building a big house in the village and intend toserve as guesthouse. Though his house is not completed, tourist management groupshowed their disagreement, they require that man to contribute 30% of his guesthouseincome into the group’s fund because he is not group member, and he can get otherCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 672nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 68. benefit than guesthouse (for instance, he will be able to sell goods). This will be potentialthreat to community solidarity if regulation of fair share is not timely set up.According to Mr. Somsi, tourist guide respect Kho Mu culture. Other elders said thatthere is not much bad impact cases caused by tourism so far, as youths do not learn muchtourist’s other culture. However, some bad signs happened when some women quarrel forcompetition of selling products to tourists. Some tourists threw away money or candy tofollowing children, then villagers required tourist guide to inform tourist about village’sprohibition against that act. Elder Siangkham feel unhappy with couples of male andfemale tourists sharing the same room because that is strange to Kho Mu people.The village community tourism management group - Most of group members are village leaders and some voluntary people. There are 22 household members. Other people did not join group because they said they were busy for field and other jobs. - Group members vote a management board. Recent management board consists of five members, one is head of the board (Mr. Somsi), also work as accountant, one is treasurer and three others are supervisors. - Management board discuss to get agreement and dicision on who will be borrower of the group’s fund.Main regulations of tourist activities - Tourist company guide is responsible to inform tourists to respect local culture. - Tourists do not throw away money, candy to offer children. - Do not throw garbage everywhere, tourists have to take it to common dust container. - Tourists do not play adventurously with children and be fully responsible for that if risks happen. - Parents educate children not to follow and harass tourists.Benefit sharing at community: - Every villagers have rights to sell their products, souvenir at the guesthouse - TMG get income from guesthouse, selling meals to put to cash to build community development fund (CDF). - Tourist guide gets 25,000 kip per day of guiding. Can get more bonuses from tourists. - TMG use CDF for receiving high ranking officers and giving credit to villagers. Poor difficult persons (e.g. use money for patient) in TMG will be free of interest.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 682nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 69. Others pay interest of 5% per month. This fund is contributed to build wall of the community house. - Check the cash at the end of month and balace cash with the bookBenefit sharing between community and Tourist Company: - Tourist company (TC) staff pay direct guesthouse, meal, guide wage to TMG. No payment direct from tourists. - TC offer blankets, money for building community guesthouse and get payment from benefit sharing of each tour. - If there is no tourists staying at the village’s guesthouse, Tourist Company pay village 10,000 kip per tour. - Now TMG see inappropriate sharing: tourist company pay tourist guide according to group, not base on number of tourists, though numbers of tourists in each group increased so far (beginning 2-5 tourists, now 10 tourists per group). TMG intend to discuss with company to change and increase wage for TMG. - Tourist company pay tax to Government.Customary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 692nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution
  • 70. Mong cultural identity Do not throw cane Provision to of carrying death Story of one ensure water at water source. death because Violations prevent source for of cutting tree at dragon god from daily life and water source in passing across production Story of a Kho Mu 1956 then cause flood death because of annoying mountain Story of rock and spirits big tree as symbols of Worship dragon husband and wife god at watershed area Belief in Provision of mountain spirits wine drinking Not do bad in wedding things, not cut Belief in Tong tree at Tong Senh, Thu Ti: Senh area. big rock, big Mong value Soul calling Violators are Customs of trees to: eat new system base ceremony, fined to rehold wedding sticky rice or get procedure at ceremony, all on land, bride’s house wedding should villagers attach worship big tree forest, red bracelets mountain, Provision of spirits Ceremony for taking wood for Choose big rock, water house building new rice big trees for Ceremony for Tong Senh Ceremony Funeral brothers worshipping Ceremony of buffalo place of Lon spirits for Belief in spirits Role of women Ban illness in raising at burial curement children Not clean Solidarity, care house at new for each other in year’s eve family, clan 13 cups of water, 1 for For good land god, offer buffalo to reproduction of ancestors, parents. Clan human, creatures head worshipCustomary Laws/Community Based Watershed Management – Luang Prabang – Laos October 10th – November 702nd, 2009. PAFO –CHESH-Lao development cooperation 1999 – 2009 – 2010 under ICCO – BfDW fundingcontribution

×